Jose David Barraza Guzman v. S. Maurice Hicks, Jr., Heriberto Tellez, et al.

Barraza Guzman · United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division · April 7, 2026 · No. Civil Action No. 26-1058

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied Jose David Barraza Guzman's motion for a temporary restraining order in connection with his habeas petition challenging his immigration detention. The court concluded that the requested release would effectively resolve the habeas petition without full briefing, that it lacked jurisdiction to stay removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), and that speculative concerns about transfer or re-arrest did not establish irreparable injury. The memorandum order was signed on April 7, 2026.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division
Decision date
April 7, 2026
Docket number
Civil Action No. 26-1058
Disposition
other

Questions Presented

  1. Whether petitioner was entitled to a temporary restraining order granting relief that substantially duplicated the ultimate relief sought in his habeas petition.
  2. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin petitioner's removal from the United States.
  3. Whether petitioner demonstrated irreparable injury sufficient to justify an order prohibiting his transfer or re-arrest.

Holdings

  1. The court denied emergency injunctive relief because the requested release and detention-related relief substantially mirrored the ultimate relief sought in the habeas petition and would effectively decide the habeas case before full briefing and development of the record.
  2. The court lacked jurisdiction to grant petitioner's request for a stay of removal because such a request constituted a challenge to a removal order and fell within the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
  3. Petitioner was not entitled to an order prohibiting his transfer or re-arrest because speculation and conclusory allegations of irreparable injury were insufficient, and he did not show that such relief was necessary to preserve the court's ability to adjudicate the habeas petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…