Guzman Morales v. Mullin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROMAN GUZMAN MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-587-SLP
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Roman Guzman Morales seeks a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 4.1 United States District Judge Scott L. Palk referred
the 	matter 	to 	the 	undersigned 	Magistrate 	Judge 	for 	initial 	proceedings
consistent with 	28 	U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 3. Petitioner filed an
emergency 	motion 	for 	a 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	and/or 	preliminary
injunction, 	Doc. 	6. 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	the 	undersigned
recommends the Court deny Petitioner’s motion.
I. 	Temporary Restraining Order requirements.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), a court may only grant a
motion for a temporary restraining order without notice, if the moving party
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:26-cv-00587-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
has complied with certain requirements, including “certif[ying] in writing any
efforts made to give notice [to the non-movant] and the reasons why it should
not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Petitioner has not complied with
those requirements here as he has not submitted to the Court any certification
of efforts made to give notice to Respondents before filing the motion. The
undersigned directed Respondents to respond to Petitioner’s habeas petition,
Doc. 1, in which he seeks the same relief asked for in his emergency motion.
See Doc. 10.
Therefore, the Court should deny the motion. See, e.g., Bahadorani v.
Bondi, et al., No. CIV-25-1091-PRW, Doc. 11 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 24, 2025)
(denying temporary restraining order when the petitioner disregarded Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(1)); Honeycutt v. Mitchell, No. CIV-08-140-W, 2008 WL 4694226,
at *1 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2008) (recognizing that a temporary restraining
order is “an extraordinary remedy, appropriate only when the procedural
safeguards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) are scrupulously honored”).
II. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
deny Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. Doc. 6.
The undersigned advises the parties of their right to file an objection to
this report and recommendation with the Clerk of this Court on or before April
7, 2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Case 5:26-cv-00587-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Procedure 72(b)(2).2 The undersigned further advises the parties that failure
to make a timely objection to this report and recommendation waives the right
to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore
v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This report and recommendation does not terminate the referral to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2026.
2 	Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has
reduced the typical objection time to Report and Recommendations to seven
days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition
(noting that rule establishing 14-day response time “does not extend to habeas
corpus petitions, which are covered by the specific rules relating to proceedings
under Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.”); see also Whitmore v. Parker, 484
F. App’x 227, 231, 231 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
may be applied discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241” and that
“while 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	may 	be 	applied 	in 	habeas
proceedings, they need not be in every instance – particularly where strict
application would undermine the habeas review process.”).
Case 5:26-cv-00587-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3