PS v. Noem et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
P.S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN,1 et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-0924-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff P.S.’s Renewed Emergency Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. (Doc. 13). For the reasons stated below the Court DENIES the
preliminary injunction.
P.S. is Nigerian. She alleges in her complaint that she is here as a pharmacy
graduate intern. She also alleges that she is a survivor of domestic abuse seeking
protection under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). She filed this action in
this Court alleging a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act,2 the Mandamus
Act,3 and “ultra virus action.”4 She currently has a pending I-290B request to review
her denied I-485 asylum application and I-360 VAWA greencard petition.
As the Court previously explained, a preliminary injunction “preserves the
1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), “[a]n action does not abate when a public officer
who is a party in an official capacity . . . ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer’s
successor is automatically substituted as a party.”
2 5 U.S.C §706
3 28 U.S.C § 1361
4 Doc. 3 at 4.
Case 3:26-cv-00924-X-BN Document 16 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
status quo” and “is an inappropriate vehicle for granting ultimate relief.”5 P.S.’s
renewed motion for a preliminary injunction again makes two requests. First, she
asks the Court to preliminarily enjoin the Government’s application of PM-602-0194
as to her. Second, she requests the Court order defendants to issue a decision on her
pending I-290B and VAWA applications. But her second request is the ultimate relief
she seeks under the Mandamus Act—an order telling the defendants to adjudicate
her pending forms. So, the Court cannot grant this relief in a preliminary injunction.
Regarding her first request, Plaintiff has again not met her burden to warrant
the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction. Critically, P.S. has not identified
whether the Court has jurisdiction, as the Immigration and Nationality Act strips
courts of jurisdiction over discretionary actions.6 And, P.S. has only in a conclusive
manner stated that the memo is “arbitrary, capricious, and [] unlawful.” The motion
is devoid of any analysis or caselaw. So she has not met her burden. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES P.S.’s amended preliminary injunction request. P.S.’s claims
otherwise remain pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2026.
___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 Doc. 12 at 1–2 (cleaned up).
6 See, e.g., Hamza v. Mullen, 3:25-CV-01710-X, Doc. 12 at 3–4 (Starr, J.).
Case 3:26-cv-00924-X-BN Document 16 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>