Guo v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Order – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GEORGE GUO #02348097,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-00432-L-BN
ORDER
On September 15, 2025, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 38) was entered, recommending that the court deny
Petitioner George Guo’s (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Guo”) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Injunction (“Motion”) (Doc. 26). Petitioner’s Objections to Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (“Objections”) (Doc. 47) was filed October 10, 2025,
and Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Supplement and Supplement to Petitioner’s Objections
(“Supplement”) (Doc. 44) was filed October 7, 2025. Magistrate Judge David Horan determined
that Petitioner cannot prevail on any of the elements for a Temporary Restraining Order, and,
therefore, his Motion should be denied. See Report. The court agrees.
First, Magistrate Judge Horan found that Mr. Guo “cannot prevail on his request for
injunctive relief because his injury is speculative.” Report at 2 (citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)). Second Magistrate Judge Horan determined that Mr. Guo cannot prevail
because he “has requested injunctive relief against state prison authorities in a habeas proceeding.”
Id. As a result, the magistrate judge recommends that the court deny the Motion.
Case 3:25-cv-00432-L-BN Document 59 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 2
After considering the pleadings, objections—and after conducting a de novo review of that
part of the Report to which Petitioner objects—file, record, and applicable law, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them
as those of the court. The court denies Petitioner’s Motion.
It is so ordered this 3rd day of April, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00432-L-BN Document 59 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>