Saechao v. Noem et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MOUANG SIEW SAECHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-0624-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Mouang Siew Saechao’s (Saechao) Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Injunction (PI).
(Doc. 3). This is one of many purported “emergency” TRO/PI requests filed by
attorney Danial Gividen in the Northern District of Texas—consistent with the
outcome in all 26 other cases involving substantially identical boilerplate filings—the
Court DENIES the TRO/PI requested in this case.1
1 See Cruz Ramirez v. Noem et al., 6:26-CV-0035-H (Hendrix, J.); Marquez Vazquez v. Noem et
al., 6:26-CV-0011-H (Hendrix, J.); Concha v. Noem et al., 6:25-CV-0105-H (Hendrix, J.); Nguyen v. Noem
et al., 6:25-CV-0105-H (Hendrix, J.); Phan v. Noem et al., 6:25-CV-0055-H (Hendrix, J.); Gulbas v. Noem
et al.., 3:26-CV-0296-K (Kinkeade, J.); Priimov v. Noem et al., 3:25-CV-3555-O (O’Connor, C.J.);
Merchant v. Noem et al., 3:25-CV-3373 (Starr, J.); Villantes George v. Noem et al., 3:25-CV-2935-S-BW
(Scholer, J.); Ramirez Guzman v. Noem et al., 3:25-CV-2932-E-BT (Brown, J.); Flores Perez v. Noem et
al., 3:25-CV-2920-K-BN (Kinkeade, J.); Thai v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec. et al., 3:25-CV-2221-X-BN
(Starr, J.); Alizadeh v. Noem et al., 3:25-CV-2316-S-BN (Scholer, J.); Nouansisouhak v. Noem et al.,
3:25-CV-2222-K-BW (Kinkeade, J.); Ngo v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec. et al., 3:25-CV-1943-L-BT
(Lindsey, J.); Nguyen v. Noem et al., 3:25-CV-1913-L-BT (Lindsey, J.); Hong v. Noem et al.,
1:26-CV-0037-H (Hendrix, J.); Torres Medrano v. Noem et al., 1:25-CV-0285-H (Hendrix, J.); Favel v.
Noem et al., 1:25-CV-0261-H (Hendrix, J.); Guevera-Vasquez v. Noem et al., 1:25-CV-0258-H (Hendrix,
J.); Guevera-Vasquez v. Noem et al., 1:25-CV-0258-H (Hendrix, J.); Beltran-Menjivar v. Noem et al.,
1:25-CV-0253-H (Hendrix, J.); Vargas Isidoro v. Noem et al., 1:25-CV-0252-H (Hendrix, J.);
Candia-Rincon v. Noem et al., 1:25-CV-0251-H (Hendrix, J.); Higareda-Cano v. Noem et al.,
1:25-CV-0225-H (Hendrix, J.); Ladak v. Noem et al., 1:25-CV-0194-H (Hendrix, J.).
Case 3:26-cv-00624-X-BW Document 8 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
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.”2 To warrant the extraordinary relief of a TRO,
the movant 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
Preliminary relief should “not conclusively resolve legal disputes[,]” and thus
a TRO is an inappropriate vehicle for granting ultimate relief.4 Specifically, a court
cannot render ultimate relief sought in a habeas petition—releasing a detainee—in
the form of a preliminary injunction or TRO.5
Saechao’s TRO seeks to upend these bedrock principles. First, it seeks to
change the status quo at the time of the lawsuit. Saechao is in ICE custody and wants
out.6 But granting a TRO would just preserve the status quo of Saechao being in
custody—something she obviously does not want. What’s more, Saechao’s TRO seeks
to conclusively resolve the ultimate legal dispute in this case—whether ICE can
2 Apex Grp. Cap. Advisors LLC v. Related Fund Mgmt. LLC, No. 3:25-CV-1627-X, 2025 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)).
3 Ladd v. Livingston, 777 F.3d 286, 288 (5th Cir. 2015).
4 Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 200 (2025).
5 Ramirez v. Noem, 6:25-CV-035-H, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2026) (Hendrix, J.) (citing Ramirez
Rios v. Noem, 3:25-CV-522, 2025 WL 3220095, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2025)).
6 Doc. 3 at 29.
Case 3:26-cv-00624-X-BW Document 8 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
detain Saechao. Conclusively deciding legal issues and granting ultimate relief is
something courts do not do in TROs. No wonder this tactic is now 0-27.
The Court DENIES Saechao’s TRO/PI request. Saechao’s habeas petition
remains pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2026.
___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00624-X-BW Document 8 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>