Sayed Fahim Ahmadi v. Mellissa Harper et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

SAYED FAHIM AHMADI #A246-563-026 CASE NO. 1:26-CV-00620 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY MELLISSA HARPER ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) in the Alternative Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 6] filed by pro se Petitioner, Sayed Fahim Ahmadi (“Petitioner”). Petitioner seeks, via this Motion, immediate release from immigration detention.1 As another Judge of this Court recently stated: The very basis of a habeas action is to challenge the statutory or constitutional basis for detention. See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 117 (2020) (“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). Seeking injunctive relief that mirrors the relief requested in the habeas petition is nothing more than a motion to decide my habeas petition now. See Garcia- Aleman v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-00886, ECF No. 20 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025). The Court will not allow Petitioner to commit an end-run around the habeas process.

Da Silva v. Tellez, No. 25-CV-1960, 2025 WL 3553041, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 8, 2025) (emphasis added).

1 [Doc. No. 6, p. 11].

The pleadings of pro se litigants are held to a more lenient standard than those of attorneys and are construed liberally to prevent a loss of rights that might result from inartful expression. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002); Cledera v. United States, 834 F. App’x 969, 972 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 543 (5th Cir. 2006)). Pro se plaintiffs must, however, “plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief rise above [a] speculative level.”

Chhim v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Taylor, 296 F.3d at 378). In any event, the Court has no obligation to “sift through the record in search of evidence” to support the pro se litigant’s arguments. Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1533 (5th Cir. 1994).

Since the preliminary relief Petitioner seeks—immediate release from immigration detention—mirrors the ultimate relief sought in Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”),? Petitioner's Motion [Doc. No. 6] is DENIED. The Habeas Petition [Doc. No. 5] is hereby referred to the Magistrate Judge.

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 9th day of April 2026.

TERRY A. DOUG (ry (oy U (ee STATES DISTRICT JU Page 2 of 2