San Miguel v. Searcy

Case: 26-10115 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 26-10115 FILED September 11, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Samuel San Miguel, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Michael Searcy; Marsha McLane; Kara Gougler; Jessica Marsh; Racheal Kingston; Chris Salinas; Chris Greenwalt; John Cochran; Wayne Smoker; Jason Heaton; Greg Shirley; David Bowers; Christopher Catron; Victoria Rodriguez; James Cruz; Michael Arenivaz; Debra Rodriguez; Bruno Ramon; Adrian Flores; Adam Pierce; Brian Mosley; Michael Terrones; Lisa Correa, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:25-CV-33 ______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Case: 26-10115 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2026

No. 26-10115

In this interlocutory appeal, Samuel San Miguel, resident # 05687217 at the Texas Civil Commitment Center, appeals the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to issue service of process.

Insofar as San Miguel challenges the district court’s denial of his request for a temporary restraining order and his request to issue service of process, we lack jurisdiction to review these issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993); In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). With respect to his argument that the district court erred in denying his request for a preliminary injunction, San Miguel has not demonstrated that he meets the requirements for entitlement to a preliminary injunction. See Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2009); Enterprise Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, we DISMISS San Miguel’s appeal, in part, for lack of jurisdiction and AFFIRM the district court’s decision as to preliminary injunctive relief.