Timur Askarbekov v. E Garcia et al

W.D. Louisiana

Timur Askarbekov v. E Garcia et al

District Court, W.D. Louisiana·Decided June 24, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-02133·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION TIMUR ASKARBEKOV #A249-262-786 CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-2133 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS E GARCIA ET AL MAG. JUDGE MCCLUSKY

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Immediate Release (ECF No 3), filed by the habeas petitioner in this case, Timur Askarbekov. Because the Motion seeks the same remedy on the same basis as the Petition, to-wit, release from detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701-02 (2001), itis DENIED. See Rodriguez v. Lyons, No. CV 25-1926, 2025 WL 3553742, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 8, 2025) (denying a “motion to decide my habeas petition now.”); Peters v. Davis, No. 6:17-cv-595, 2018 WL 11463602, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2018) (explaining that a TRO is not purposed “to give a plaintiff the ultimate relief he seeks”); Lindell v. United States, 82 F.4th 614, 618 (8th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he purpose of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo; it is not to give the movant the ultimate relief he seeks.”). THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 24th day of June, 2026.

JERRY}DWARDPS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION TIMUR ASKARBEKOV #A249-262-786 CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-2133 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS E GARCIA ET AL MAG. JUDGE MCCLUSKY

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Immediate Release (ECF No 3), filed by the habeas petitioner in this case, Timur Askarbekov. Because the Motion seeks the same remedy on the same basis as the Petition, to-wit, release from detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701-02 (2001), itis DENIED. See Rodriguez v. Lyons, No. CV 25-1926, 2025 WL 3553742, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 8, 2025) (denying a “motion to decide my habeas petition now.”); Peters v. Davis, No. 6:17-cv-595, 2018 WL 11463602, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2018) (explaining that a TRO is not purposed “to give a plaintiff the ultimate relief he seeks”); Lindell v. United States, 82 F.4th 614, 618 (8th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he purpose of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo; it is not to give the movant the ultimate relief he seeks.”). THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 24th day of June, 2026.

JERRY}DWARDPS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Timur Askarbekov v. E Garcia et al, (W.D. La. 2026).

Pincite

Timur Askarbekov v. E Garcia et al (Timur Askarbekov v. E Garcia et al) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related