Michel Mojarena Mora v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

MICHEL MOJARENA MORA #A089-095-305 CASE NO. 6:26-CV-01119 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR. U S IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES ENFORCEMENT MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the court is a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [doc. 2] filed by petitioner Michel Mojarena Mora, seeking a stay of removal and an order prohibiting his transfer during the pendency of his habeas proceedings. Mr. Mora, a native of Cuba, states that he was taken into immigration custody on February 20, 2026, pursuant to a removal order issued in December 2022. Doc. 1, p. 4; doc. 1, att. 2, p. 3. He challenges his overstay in detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Doc. 1, att. 1.

An applicant for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction must demonstrate each of the following: (1) a substantial likelihood that his cause will succeed on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm that the injunction might do to the opposing party, and (4) that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Misquitta v. Warden Pine Prairie ICE Processing Ctr., 353 F.Supp.3d 518, 521 (W.D. La. 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. Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 2017). Courts should deny such motions more often than not. 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].”); 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.”’).

Here the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE petitioner’s TRO motion because he has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits as required to warrant that extraordinary remedy. The length of his detention exceeds the six month period found presumptively reasonable in Zadvydas. Accordingly, he cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits at this point and the court hereby ORDERS that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [doc. 2] be DENIED. The petition [doc. 1] will be reviewed by the magistrate judge once the deficiencies are corrected.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 10th day of April, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2