Maria Del Pilar Yunga Guartan v. Warden South Louisiana ICE Processing Center, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

MARIA DEL PILAR CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-2844 YUNGA GUARTAN

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

WARDEN SOUTH LOUISIANA MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY ICE PROCESSING CENTER, ET AL.

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is an Emergency Motion to Prevent Transfer or Removal Pending Habeas Proceedings (Record Document 2) filed by the habeas petitioner in this case, Maria Del Pilar Yunga Guartan (“Petitioner”). According to the Motion, Petitioner is a native of Ecuador who is currently being detained at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center. See id. Petitioner requests an order enjoining the Government from removing her from the United States and an order prohibiting the Government from transferring her to a facility outside of this Court’s jurisdiction. An applicant for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) must demonstrate each of the following: (1) a substantial likelihood his cause will succeed on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to the opposing party, and (4) granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Misquitta v. Warden Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center, 353 F. Supp.3d 518, 521 (W.D. La. Nov. 16, 2018) (citing Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1981)). The decision of whether to grant or deny a TRO lies in the district court’s discretion. See Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 2017). Courts should deny such motions more often than not. See Albright v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.Supp.2d 523, 532 (E.D. La. 1999) (explaining that temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary relief and rarely issued.”); see also Suburban Propane, L.P. v. D & S GCTX LLC, 2025 WL 2429087, at *2 (W.D. Tex. 2025) (holding that the extraordinary relief under Rule 65 must be “unequivocally

show[n].”); see also Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 355–56 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Only under ‘extraordinary circumstances’ will this court reverse the denial of a preliminary injunction.”). In this case, Petitioner seeks to enjoin her removal. A request for stay of removal is a challenge to a removal order. See Imran v. Harper, No. 25-30370, 2026 WL 93131, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), citing In re Asemani, 2025 WL 1823953, at *1 (4th Cir. July 2, 2025) (construing habeas petitioner’s request for stay as seeking review of the final removal order). The Fifth Circuit recently reiterated that “federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims connected directly and immediately with a decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” Id.,

(citing Humphries v. Various Fed. USINS Emps., 164 F.3d 936, 943 (5th Cir. 1999) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (internal quotations omitted)). This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Petitioner’s request to restrain Respondents from removing her from the United States while she seeks review of her Habeas Petition. See Fabuluje v. Immigration & Naturalization Agency, 244 F.3d 133, 133 (5th Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (holding that the district court was without jurisdiction to grant a stay of removal under § 1252(g)); Idokogi v. Ashcroft, 66 F. App’x 526, 526 (5th Cir. 2003) (same); see also Westley v. Harper, No. CV 25-229, 2025 WL 592788, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2025). Regarding the request to prohibit transfer to a different facility, “[m]ere speculation or conclusory allegations of an irreparable injury are insufficient to entitle a movant to injunctive relief.” Lotter v. Lyons, 2025 WL 2946630, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2025). Petitioner fails to show a likelihood that she will be transferred to another facility. Additionally, this Court's jurisdiction attaches with the filing of the habeas petition and is not destroyed by any subsequent transfer. See Pena Ramirez v. Noem, No. H-25-5484, 2025 WL 3443186, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2025) (citing Griffin v. Ebbert, 751 F.3d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 2014)). The Court is reluctant to set a precedent that would interfere with the government's need to transfer any immigration detainee with a pending habeas petition. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Prevent Transfer or Removal Pending Habeas Proceedings (Record Document 2) is DENIED. THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 21st day of August, 2026. hs Gp SO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE