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

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 action against Michael Searcy and numerous other defendants in the Northern District of Texas.

In this interlocutory appeal, 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 motion requesting issuance of service of process.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked appellate 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 affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. It concluded that San Miguel had not demonstrated that he satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal to review the denial of the requested temporary restraining order.
  • The court also lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to issue service of process.
  • San Miguel failed to establish the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, so the denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that not every pretrial ruling is immediately appealable. Characterizing requested relief as urgent does not by itself provide appellate jurisdiction over a temporary restraining order or a procedural ruling concerning service.

It also reinforces that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the governing requirements; failure to do so permits affirmance of the denial even when appellate review is otherwise available.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top