Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01357

#1

Mar 02, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21489280), filed by Cuong Manh Vu. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Appendix)(Gividen, Danial) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#2

Mar 02, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction by Cuong Manh Vu. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gividen, Danial) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Bemporad (vnd)

Mar 02, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (vnd)

Mar 03, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 03, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

Mar 04, 2026

Order

#4

Mar 12, 2026

Order

#5

Mar 12, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#6

Mar 12, 2026

Text Order DENYING 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction. The relief Petitioner seeks through this motion essentially mirrors the ultimate relief sought on the merits of this already expedited proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Compare ECF No. 1 with ECF No. 2 . Such circumstances justify denying the motion and proceeding directly to the merits of the habeas petition itself. See, e.g., Garcia-Aleman v. Thompson, No. SA-25-CV-886-OLG, unpub. order at 12 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025) (collecting cases); Chambliss v. Ashcroft, No. 3:04-CV-0298-D, 2004 WL 718998, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2004) (recommendation of Mag. J.) (recommending denial of similar motion because preliminary relief sought was "the same as the relief sought through the habeas petition") adopted by No. 3:04-CV-0298-D, 2005 WL 724206 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2005). Indeed, prompt resolution is already contemplated by the nature of the writ itself. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("A court... entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted."); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 291 (1969) (reiterating that "the office of the writ is to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy" and habeas proceedings "must not be allowed to flounder in a 'procedural morass'"). The Court has already issued an Order for Service that enters a limited stay and expedites the briefing. For the reasons stated herein the Court denies the motion. Entered by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rw) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO