Response | Filed: July 14, 2026
| Entered: July 14, 2026
Bahena Rodriguez v. De Anda Ybarra et al
Habeas Corpus: Alien Detainee | New Mexico
Response (when not to a motion)
Amended RESPONSE and Motion to Dismiss re 16 Petition for 2241 Relief filed by Pamela Bondi, Mary De Anda Ybarra, Todd M Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Pecoraro, Jesse)
Order | Filed: July 14, 2026
| Entered: July 14, 2026
Lemus Castellon v. Mullin et al
Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee | Colorado
Order
ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Therein, Petitioner insists this case should be determined on his constitutional due process claims, and he argues this case does not turn on statutory detention categories or discretionary bond authority. However, the Court has thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter, and this case is materially indistinguishable from the myriad other petitions to have come before the courts in this and other districts. Like most claimants to come before the Court in these immigration matters, it is clear Petitioner is being detained indefinitely without a bond hearing. However, given Petitioner's six-year residence in the United States, he may only properly be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Tenth Circuit recently made this clear and agreed with the majority of courts in this district and around the country that "noncitizens who entered the United States and were thereafter detained in the interior of the country" are subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225. Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, No. 26-6019, 2026 WL 1876709, at *5 (10th Cir. June 30, 2026). Because the Tenth's Circuit's statutory interpretation resolves this matter, this Court exercises prudence and declines to undertake the proposed constitutional questions. In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 61 F.4th 1126, 1182 (10th Cir. 2023) ("It is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of the court's jurisdiction that normally the court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.").
In their Response, Respondents state that they "are not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case. " Dkt. 9 , p.3. Therefore, considering the Tenth Circuit's holding, Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED on the grounds that he is not properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Furthermore, because Respondents have not contradicted Petitioner's allegations regarding his re-detention and have offered no lawful basis for his detention--alternative arguments under § 1226 or the existence of an administrative warrant--the Court concludes Petitioner is entitled to immediate release. Vargas Cardenas v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC, 2026 WL 886340, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2026).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Pedro Frank Lemus Castellon is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondents are enjoined to the extent that Petitioner remains within the United States. This Order shall cease to apply if he is removed from the United States.
2. Petitioner SHALL be immediately released from custody.
3. To effectuate the purpose of this Court's Order and allow Petitioner to return home, Respondents are also temporarily enjoined from detaining Petitioner for a period of fourteen days; and
4. Respondents SHALL FILE a status report within FIVE DAYS of this Order certifying compliance.
SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 7/14/2026.
Text Only Entry (skclc1)