Alexander v. Montgomery County Community Supervision & Corrections Department, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARGARET ALEXANDRA
ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-4209
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION &
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is Plaintiff Margaret Alexandra Alexander’s
(“Plaintiff”) 	Emergency 	Motion 	for 	Temporary 	Restraining 	Order 	and
Immediate Stay of State Arrest and Detention. 	(ECF No. 85). 	Based on a
review 	of 	the 	motion, 	arguments, 	and 	relevant 	law, 	the 	Court
RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion (id.) be DENIED.
Plaintiff states, “[o]n February 15, 2026, Plaintiff received formal notice
that the 435th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas issued a
capias ordering her arrest based upon alleged probation violations arising
directly from the same judgment, enforcement actions, and constitutional
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 55).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 19, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04209 Document 89 Filed 02/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
violations currently under active review in this Court.” 	(Id. at 2). 	As such,
Plaintiff 	seeks 	a 	Temporary 	Restraining 	Order 	(“TRO”) 	“prohibiting
Defendants, Montgomery County, Texas, and all persons acting in concert with
them, from executing the capias issued by the 435th Judicial District Court of
Montgomery County, Texas.”2 (Id. at 8).
A TRO is “a highly accelerated and temporary form of preliminary
injunctive relief, which may be granted without notice to the opposing party or
parties.” 	Cotton v. Tex. Express Pipeline, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-453, 2017 WL
2999430, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017). 	To obtain a TRO, a plaintiff must
establish that (1) there is a substantial likelihood that it will prevail on the
merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the
injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs
whatever damage the proposed injunctive relief would cause the defendant;
and (4) the granting of the injunction is not adverse to the public interest.
2 The Court notes that Plaintiff moves for a TRO pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(b) even though defendants have been served in this case. (ECF No. 85 at 1).
Nevertheless, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plainly state that a court may issue a
temporary restraining order without notice to the other party or its attorney only if: (A)
specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be
heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to
give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 	FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1). 	Here,
Plaintiff does not certify in writing any efforts made to give notice to Defendants or why
notice should not be required. 	Thus, Plaintiff has not satisfied both requirements for the
issuance of an ex parte TRO under Rule 65(b)(1). 	See Silver v. Off. of Att’y Gen., No. 1:24-cv-
1298, 2025 WL 890734, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 25-50350,
2025 WL 3079092 (5th Cir. June 4, 2025).
Case 4:25-cv-04209 Document 89 Filed 02/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 360 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Canal Auth. v.
Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974)).
Plaintiff’s 	motion 	consists 	of 	conclusory 	assertions3 	as 	to 	the
requirements for a TRO. 	(ECF No. 85 at 5–7). 	This is insufficient to satisfy
her burden as the movant of demonstrating that there is a substantial threat
that irreparable harm will result if a TRO is not granted or a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits of her claims.4 	Castro v. City of Grand
Prairie, No. 3:21-cv-885, 2021 WL 1530303, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2021)
(“Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations that he “has suffered irreparable harm,
including 	the 	loss 	of 	his 	constitutional 	rights,” 	. 	. 	. 	are 	conclusory 	and
insufficient to satisfy his burden as the movant of demonstrating that there is
a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if his TRO Application
is not granted.”).
Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first and second requirements for
a temporary restraining order, the Court need not address whether she has
3 For example, to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success, Plaintiff states as
follows: Plaintiff’s claims include: Documented ADA violations[;] Procedural admissions by
state officials acknowledging improper probation reinstatement[;] Certified transcripts
demonstrating procedural irregularities[;] Extensive forensic and documentary evidence
already before this Court. 	These facts establish substantial federal claims warranting
judicial protection during adjudication.”
4 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and § 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (ECF No. 27 at 1).
Case 4:25-cv-04209 Document 89 Filed 02/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
met her burden with respect to the remaining requirements for injunctive
relief under federal law. Id.
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Emergency Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Immediate Stay of State Arrest and
Detention (ECF No. 85) be DENIED.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on February 18, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04209 Document 89 Filed 02/18/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4