Gomez Gonzalez v. Bergami et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LISANDRO ALBERTO GOMEZ
GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
THOMAS BERGAMI et al.,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-0396-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Lisandro Alberto Gomez Gonzalez’s (Gomez
Gonzalez) Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Order
to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction (PI). (Doc. 8). For the reasons
stated below, the Court DENIES the TRO/PI request.
A TRO serves to preserve the status quo at the timing the lawsuit was filed
and prevent irreparable harm to the movant so a court can “render a meaningful
decision after a trial on the merits.”1 To warrant the extraordinary relief of a TRO,
the movant must demonstrate:
(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of
irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is
denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted;
and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public
interest.2
1 Apex Grp. Cap. Advisors LLC v. Related Fund Mgmt. LLC, No. 3:25-CV-1627-X, 2025 WL
1869436, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2025) (Starr, J.) (citing Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d
567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974)).
2 Ladd v. Livingston, 777 F.3d 286, 288 (5th Cir. 2015).
Case 3:26-cv-00396-X-BT Document 10 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
Preliminary relief should “not conclusively resolve legal disputes[,]” and thus
a TRO is an inappropriate vehicle for granting ultimate relief.3 Specifically, a court
cannot render ultimate relief sought in a habeas petition—releasing a detainee—in
the form of a preliminary injunction or TRO.4
Gomez Gonzalez’s TRO seeks to upend these bedrock principles. First, it seeks
to change the status quo at the time of the lawsuit. Gomez Gonzalez is in ICE custody
and wants out.5 But granting a TRO would just preserve the status quo of Gomez
Gonzalez being in custody—something he obviously does not want. What’s more,
Gomez Gonzalez’s TRO seeks to conclusively resolve the ultimate legal dispute in this
case—whether ICE can detain him. Conclusively deciding legal issues and granting
ultimate relief is something courts do not do in TROs.
The Court DENIES Gomez Gonzalez’s TRO/PI request. His habeas petition
remains pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2026.
___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 200 (2025).
4 Ramirez v. Noem, 6:25-CV-035-H, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2026) (Hendrix, J.) (citing Ramirez
Rios v. Noem, 3:25-CV-522, 2025 WL 3220095, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2025)).
5 Doc. 8-1 at 2.
Case 3:26-cv-00396-X-BT Document 10 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>