- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lopez-Lucas v. Warden of Prairieland Detention Center
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ISMAEL LÓPEZ-LUCAS, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF PRAIRIELAND
DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-3218-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Ismael López-Lucas's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) requesting that the Court "prohibit[] Respondents. . . from transferring [him] from Prairieland Detention Center outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court."1But López-Lucas fails to demonstrate anywhere in his TRO that a transfer is imminent or even likely. A TRO is not an extra backstop or something to be granted "just in case," so the Court DENIES the TRO request.
A TRO serves to preserve the status quo at the timing the lawsuit was filed and prevent irreparable harm to the movant so a court can "render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits."2To warrant this extraordinary relief, the movant
1 Doc. 2 at 1 .
2 Apex Grp. Cap. Advisors LLC v. Related Fund Mgmt. LLC, No. 3:2 5-CV-162 7-X, 2 02 5 WL 1869436, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2025) (Starr, J.) (citing Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974)).
2
must demonstrate:
(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.3
A plaintiff must demonstrate that "irreparable injury is likely" without a TRO.4 And TROs are an "extraordinary relief and rarely issued."5Accordingly, the "burden of proof is a heavy one."6López-Lucas seeks an order from the Court preventing Respondents from "transferring [him] outside of the Northern District of Texas while [his] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus remains pending."7Yet nowhere in his petition does he allege that his removal is imminent, in the foreseeable future, or even likely. Likewise, he does not make a showing that transfer out of this judicial district will deprive him of the ability to have his habeas petition heard. He thus fails to demonstrate a substantial threat (or any threat) of irreparable injury. The Court therefore DENIES López-Lucas's TRO request. His habeas petition remains pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of September, 2026. ____________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Ladd v. Livingston, 777 F.3 d 286, 288 (5th Cir. 2015).
4 Anibowei v. Morgan, 70 F.4 th 898, 902 (5th Cir. 2023)
5 Greer's Ranch Café v. Guzman, 5 40 F. Supp. 3d 638, 644 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (O'Connor, J.).
6 Trinity USA Operating, LLC v. Barker, 844 F. Supp. 2d 781, 788 (S.D. Miss. 2011).
7 Doc. 2 at 3.
Alert