Kong L. v. Easterwood
Kong L. v. David Easterwood, Director of St. Paul Enforcement and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Dave Isais, Jail Commander of the Sherburne County Jail; Todd Blanche, Attorney General of the United States; and David J. Venturella, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-03669
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Kong L. v. Easterwood, Judge Provinzino denied as moot permission to file a Rule 59(e) motion and denied without prejudice Kong L.’s temporary restraining-order request.
Kong L., whose permission request was denied as moot and whose temporary restraining-order motion was denied without prejudice; and the government respondents, whom the requested order would have restrained from removing him.
What happened
In Kong L. v. David Easterwood, the court had previously denied Kong L.’s petition challenging his immigration detention, finding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement followed the applicable regulations and that his detention was lawful.
Kong L. asked for permission to file a motion to change the judgment, arguing that the court had made legal errors, and also asked for an emergency order stopping the government from removing him while that motion was pending. The court said he did not need permission to file the judgment-changing motion because the federal rule for changing a final judgment applies directly, while the local rule requiring permission concerns nonfinal orders. The court also said Kong L.’s request for an emergency order did not address the required factors and that no judgment-changing motion was yet before the court.
Judge Provinzino ordered that Kong L.’s request for permission to file the motion be denied as moot and that his emergency request for a temporary restraining order be denied without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Kong L. v. Easterwood · No. 0:26-cv-03669
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Sept. 22, 2026
Background
On September 21, 2026, the court denied Kong L.’s petition challenging his immigration detention. The court concluded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had followed the applicable regulations when revoking his Order of Supervision and that Kong L. was lawfully detained. The court specifically found that, when Kong L. was arrested, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had a valid I-205 warrant and had shown that his removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Requests
After that order, Kong L. filed a letter under Local Rule 7.1(j) asking for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. He argued that compelling circumstances existed because the court had made legal errors. He also asked the court to preserve the existing situation while the proposed motion was pending.
Kong L. separately filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order under Rule 65. He asked the court to stop the government from removing him from the District of Minnesota while his Rule 59(e) motion was pending.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied the request for permission because Kong L. did not need permission to file a Rule 59(e) motion. The court explained that Local Rule 7.1(j) requires permission for a motion seeking reconsideration of a nonfinal order, while Rule 59(e) applies to a motion seeking to alter or amend a final judgment. The court determined that Kong L. was seeking to amend a final judgment and that a party may file a Rule 59(e) motion as of right.
The court also denied the temporary restraining order. It described such an order as an extraordinary remedy for which the person seeking relief has the burden of showing that it is proper. The court identified four factors: the risk of irreparable harm without relief, the balance of harms, the likelihood of success, and the public interest. The court found that Kong L.’s request discussed none of those factors. It also noted that no Rule 59(e) motion was before the court, that the letter contained only summary statements of the possible legal challenges, and that the court had already considered and rejected many of Kong L.’s arguments.
Disposition
Judge Laura M. Provinzino ordered that Kong L.’s letter requesting permission to file a Rule 59(e) motion be denied as moot. The court ordered that Kong L.’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order be denied without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.