Delgado v. Mullin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LESLY SHULAY JANAMPA
DELGADO,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-881-R
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Lesly Shulay Janampa Delgado seeks a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1.1 United States District Judge David L. Russell
referred 	the 	matter 	to 	the 	undersigned 	Magistrate 	Judge 	for 	initial
proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 6. Petitioner
filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and non-transfer
order, Doc. 2. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends
the Court deny Petitioner’s motion.
I. 	Temporary Restraining Order requirements.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), a court may only grant a
motion for a temporary restraining order without notice, if the moving party
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:26-cv-00881-R Document 8 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
has complied with certain requirements, including “certif[ying] in writing any
efforts made to give notice [to the non-movant] and the reasons why it should
not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Petitioner has not complied with
those requirements here as she has not submitted to the Court any certification
of efforts made to give notice to Respondents before filing the motion. The
undersigned 	also 	directed 	Respondents 	to 	respond 	to 	Petitioner’s 	habeas
petition, Doc. 1, and ordered Respondents to provide the Court with 72-hour
advance notice of any transfer of Petitioner. See Doc. 7, at 2. So, part of the
relief Petitioner seeks in her emergency motion, see Doc. 2, at 4, has already
been addressed by the Court.
Therefore, the Court should deny the motion. See, e.g., Bahadorani v.
Bondi, et al., No. CIV-25-1091-PRW, Doc. 11 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 24, 2025)
(denying temporary restraining order when the petitioner disregarded Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(1)); Honeycutt v. Mitchell, No. CIV-08-140-W, 2008 WL 4694226,
at *1 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2008) (recognizing that a temporary restraining
order is “an extraordinary remedy, appropriate only when the procedural
safeguards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) are scrupulously honored”).
II. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
deny Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. Doc. 2.
The undersigned advises the parties of their right to file an objection to
Case 5:26-cv-00881-R Document 8 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
this report and recommendation with the Clerk of this Court on or before May
15, 2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises the parties that failure to
make a timely objection to this report and recommendation waives the right to
appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This report and recommendation does not terminate the referral to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00881-R Document 8 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 3