Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Luis S.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE); Eric Klang, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Crow Wing County,
Minnesota; David Easterwood, in his
official capacity as Acting Field Office
Director of the Saint Paul Field Office,
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
U.S. Immigration & Customs
Enforcement; Todd Lyons, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; and
Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondents.
Civ. No. 26-1482 (JWB/ECW)
ORDER ON MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Petitioner Luis S.R. moves for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to prevent
his transfer from this District to a facility in Louisiana. (See Doc. No. 14, TRO.) The
motion arises in the context of his pending habeas petition challenging his continued
detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (See Doc. No. 12.)
The current record is unclear. Petitioner asserts that there is no meaningful
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement has not identified a country willing to accept him, and no concrete removal
CASE 0:26-cv-01482-JWB-ECW Doc. 15 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
plan exists. (TRO at 4–5.) Respondents, by contrast, state in a declaration that Petitioner
has been conditionally approved for transfer to a southern border field office for purposes
of removal to Mexico and that removal was anticipated before being halted by earlier
court intervention. (Doc. No. 3 at 1, 4–5, 11–12; Doc. No. 4 ¶¶ 22, 25–27.)
The incongruity here matters. A TRO requires a clear showing under the
Dataphase factors, including a likelihood of success on the merits. Dataphase Sys., Inc.
v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981). On this record, the likelihood-of-
success inquiry is contested and uncertain. This Court cannot determine, based on the
present submissions, whether removal is meaningfully foreseeable within the meaning of
Zadvydas, or instead remains speculative.
At the same time, the equities support a brief maintenance of the status quo. See
id. Petitioner represents that he is at risk of imminent transfer out of this District. A
transfer could complicate Petitioner’s access to counsel and disrupt ongoing judicial
review. Removal from the United States would irreversibly alter the posture of this case
and may moot Petitioner’s habeas claim before the request for relief can be meaningfully
evaluated.
A short administrative restraint is therefore appropriate—not as a determination on
the merits, but to allow this Court to obtain a clearer record before ruling on the requested
relief.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. 	Petitioner Luis S.R.’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.
No. 14) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
CASE 0:26-cv-01482-JWB-ECW Doc. 15 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
2. 	Temporary Restraining Order (Status Quo Preservation). Respondents are
temporarily restrained, for a period of 72 hours from the entry of this Order, from:
a. 	Transferring Petitioner Luis S.R. out of this District or
b. 	Removing Petitioner from the United States, unless further extended
by the Court.
3. 	Supplemental Declaration. Within 48 hours from the entry of this Order,
Respondents shall file a declaration addressing, with specificity:
a. 	The purpose of the proposed transfer to Louisiana, including
whether it is part of a concrete plan for removal;
b. 	Whether any country—specifically Mexico—has approved or agreed
to accept Petitioner, and the basis for that representation;
c. 	Whether a removal date has been scheduled or is anticipated, and
what steps remain before removal can occur;
d. 	Whether any travel documents, diplomatic assurances, or other
acceptance materials have been obtained; and
e. 	What arrangements, if any, have been made to ensure continuity of
medical care and access to counsel in the event of transfer.
4. 	Petitioner’s Response. Petitioner may file a response within 24 hours of
Respondents’ supplemental filing.
5. 	Further Proceedings. This Court will determine whether further injunctive
relief is warranted upon review of the supplemental submissions.
This Order preserves the status quo for a limited period only. It does not reflect a
determination that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining
order or that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his habeas claim.
CASE 0:26-cv-01482-JWB-ECW Doc. 15 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Date: March 17, 2026
Time: 7:00 p.m.
s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01482-JWB-ECW Doc. 15 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4