PS v. Noem et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
P.S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-0924-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff P.S.’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. (Doc. 5). For the reasons stated below the Court DENIES the
preliminary injunction.
A preliminary injunction 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 preliminary injunction, 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-00924-X-BN Document 12 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
Preliminary relief should “not conclusively resolve legal disputes[,]” and thus
a preliminary injunction is an inappropriate vehicle for granting ultimate relief.3
Three of the four requests in P.S.’s preliminary injunction request the same
ultimate relief sought in her complaint.4 So the Court cannot grant the requests as
preliminary relief. As for her one request that does not seek ultimate relief, she fails
to carry her burden of a likelihood of success on the merits to warrant “enjoining the
application of PM-602-0194” as to her.5
Accordingly, the Court DENIES P.S.’s preliminary injunction request. P.S.’s
claims otherwise remain pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2026.
___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 200 (2025).
4 Compare Doc. 3 at 5 and Doc. 5 at 2.
5 Doc. 5 at 3.
Case 3:26-cv-00924-X-BN Document 12 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>