Contreras-Molina v. Warden Prairieland Detention Center et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
OSNEIBER JOSUE
CONTRERAS-MOLINA,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF THE
PRARIELAND DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-00867-E-BN
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Osneiber Josue Contreras-Molina’s (Molina) Ex
Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (ECF No. 4). For the reasons
stated below, the Court DENIES the TRO 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-00867-E-BN Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3 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
Contreras’ TRO seeks to upend these bedrock principles. First, it seeks to
change the status quo at the time of the lawsuit. Contreras is in ICE custody and wants
out.5 But granting a TRO would just preserve the status quo of Contreras being in
custody—something he obviously does not want. What’s more, Contreras’ 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 Contreras’ TRO request. His habeas petition remains
pending.
Contreras also requests that the Court enjoins Respondents “from transferring
Petitioner from this judicial district, or removing or deporting him from the United
States” (ECF No. 4 at 6). This request is DENIED AS MOOT. Contreras-Molina is
currently in the process of appealing his removal order to the Board of Immigration
Appeals, and removal orders are automatically stayed during appellate proceedings.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.6(a).
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 ECF No. 3 at 2.
Case 3:26-cv-00867-E-BN Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2026.
_________________________________
ADA BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00867-E-BN Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>