Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

San Miguel v. Searcy — Fifth Circuit dismissed part of the appeal and affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Samuel San Miguel v. Michael Searcy, et al.
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge
Don R. Willett (Donald J. Trump, 2017); Stuart Kyle Duncan (Donald Trump, 2018); Kurt D. Engelhardt (Donald Trump, 2018)
Date Decided
September 11, 2026
Docket No.
26-10115
Topics
Appellate Jurisdiction, Preliminary Injunctions, Temporary Restraining Orders
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Samuel San Miguel, a resident of the Texas Civil Commitment Center, brought an interlocutory appeal from rulings in his federal district court case against Michael Searcy and numerous other defendants.

San Miguel challenged the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He also appealed the denial of his request for issuance of service of process.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of San Miguel’s request for a temporary restraining order and his request for issuance of service of process. It therefore dismissed those portions of the appeal.

The court separately considered the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, which was reviewable on interlocutory appeal. It concluded that San Miguel had not demonstrated that he satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction and affirmed that ruling.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth Circuit lacked interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over the denial of the temporary restraining order.
  • The court also lacked jurisdiction at this stage to review the district court’s refusal to issue service of process.
  • San Miguel failed to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, so the denial of that relief was affirmed.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the limited scope of interlocutory appellate review. Although a denial of a preliminary injunction may be immediately appealable, denials of temporary restraining orders and procedural requests concerning service ordinarily are not reviewable before final judgment.

It also reinforces that an appellant challenging the denial of a preliminary injunction must demonstrate satisfaction of the established requirements for that extraordinary remedy.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top