Tecun-Deleon v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TULIO TECUN-DELEON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-46-G
)
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity )
as Secretary, U.S. Department )
of Homeland Security, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER
On January 12, 2026, Petitioner Tulio Tecun-DeLeon, appearing through counsel,
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition,” Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, challenging his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See Pet.
(Doc. No. 1).
Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (Doc. No. 5) filed on January 16, 2026. Petitioner seeks emergency relief pursuant
to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the form of release from custody, or
in the alternative, the provision of a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), because,
he represents, he has been detained in violation of certain immigration statutes as well as
of his due process rights under the Constitution. See id. at 3.
I. Standards of Review
As explained by the Tenth Circuit,
Ordinarily, a movant seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the
Case 5:26-cv-00046-G Document 6 Filed 01/19/26 Page 1 of 3

2
movant if the injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant
outweighs the injury to the party opposing the preliminary injunction; and
(4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Because a
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the movant’s right to
relief must be clear and unequivocal.
Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir.
2001) (citation omitted). These four requirements apply equally to a request for a
temporary restraining order (or “TRO”). See Wiechmann v. Ritter, 44 F. App’x 346, 347
(10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Terry, No. CIV-19-250-SLP, 2019 WL 7753271, at *1
(W.D. Okla. Mar. 26, 2019).
Petitioner’s request for a TRO is also governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Rule 65(b)(1) prescribes that the Court may enter a temporary restraining
order without notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if (1) “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 (2) “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)(A), (B).
II. Petitioner fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)
Petitioner’s Emergency Motion does not provide the required certification
describing “any efforts made to give notice” of the Emergency Motion to Respondents or
identifying any reasons why such notice “should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
In the Certificate of Service for the Emergency Motion, counsel for Petitioner indicates an
expectation that the Clerk of Court will send a Notice of Electronic Filing regarding the
Emergency Motion to Robert J. Troester, the United States Attorney for the Western
Case 5:26-cv-00046-G Document 6 Filed 01/19/26 Page 2 of 3

3
District of Oklahoma. See Pet.’s Emergency Mot. at 16. Presumably, counsel for Petitioner
is referring to the regular distribution of filings through the CM/ECF system to registered
attorneys who have entered an appearance in a case. But in this matter, which was only
recently initiated, an attorney has yet to enter an appearance for any Respondent.
Because Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1), the issuance
of a TRO without notice is “improper.” Robinson v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, No. CIV-25-289-
D, 2025 WL 1387790, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 13, 2025); see also Com. Sec. Bank v. Walker
Bank & Tr. Co., 456 F.2d 1352, 1356 (10th Cir. 1972) (“Rule 65 must be strictly complied
with.”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00046-G Document 6 Filed 01/19/26 Page 3 of 3