Gonzalez Gonzalez v. De Anda Ybarra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
LUIS GONZALEZ GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MARY DE ANDA YBARRA, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FIELD
OFFICE DIRECTOR OF EL PASO
FIELD OFFICE OF U.S.
IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; WARDEN, IN HIS
OR HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
WARDEN OF CAMP EAST
MONTANA DETENTION FACILITY,
U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; TODD LYONS, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; KRISTI NOEM, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; and
PAMELA BONDI, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 3:25-CV-00656-LS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Petitioner Luis Gonzalez Gonzalez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241.1 He also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.2 For the following
reasons, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
1 ECF No. 1.
2 ECF No. 4.
Case 3:25-cv-00656-LS Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The elements required to grant a motion for injunctive relief are:
(1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant 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 outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant;
and (4) the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public
interest. 3
When the government is the opposing party, the third and fourth elements merge.4 The district
court has discretion as to whether to grant or deny injunctive relief.5
The Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing of substantial threat
that irreparable harm will result if the temporary restraining order is not granted. Petitioner requests
that Respondents be enjoined from transferring him from this jurisdiction or removing him from
the United States while his petition is pending.6 He argues that this would cause “irreparable harm
in the form of unreasonable delay and needless detention that would be even further prolonged.”7
Transfer from this jurisdiction would not needlessly prolong the case. “[T]he general rule
. . . for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement” is that “jurisdiction lies in
only one district: the district of confinement.”8 But Petitioner points to no authority for the
proposition that a court loses jurisdiction if the petitioner is subsequently transferred to a different
district.9 In that case, Petitioner need only amend his petition to ensure that his immediate physical
custodian is named as a respondent.10
3 Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987).
4 Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 700 F. Supp. 3d 539, 544 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (quoting Nken v.
Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435–36 (2009)).
5 Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1984).
6 ECF No. 4 at 3.
7 Id.
8 Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004).
9 See Khalil v. Joyce, 777 F. Supp. 3d 369, 408 (D.N.J. 2025) (stating that a habeas petition must be filed
in the district where the petitioner is confined at the time of filing).
10 See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435 (holding that the proper respondent in a habeas petition is the one who has
“immediate custody of the party detained”).
Case 3:25-cv-00656-LS Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Habeas petitions are available as a remedy when the petitioner is held in unlawful
detention.11 Petitioner’s habeas petition requests that he be released from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody pending his removal proceedings or that ICE hold a bond
hearing to allow for his release.12 Petitioner’s removal from the United States would constitute
release from ICE custody, which is the remedy that he seeks. Therefore, Petitioner has not
explained how he would suffer irreparable harm if removed from the United States.
As Petitioner has not met the second element required for a temporary restraining order,
the Court denies his motion [ECF No. 4].
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED and ENTERED on January 7, 2026.
______________________________
LEON SCHYDLOWER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
12 ECF No. 1 at 27.
Case 3:25-cv-00656-LS Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3