District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-00488

#1

Feb 09, 2026

First APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-10809154)Attorney Jan Peter Weiss added to party Alfredo Ramirez-Francisco(pty:pet), filed by Alfredo Ramirez-Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons)(Weiss, Jan) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#2

Feb 09, 2026

Case assigned to Judge S. Kato Crews and drawn to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter. Text Only Entry (eluce, ) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#3

Feb 09, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). No summons issued in this case type. (eluce, ) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#4

Feb 09, 2026

ORDER Upon review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1, it is ORDERED that Petitioner shall SERVE Respondents with a copy of the Petition and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail and by overnight mail, on or before February 11, 2026. Petitioner shall promptly file proof of such service on the docket, and counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter their notices of appearance. Based upon a preliminary review of the Petition, the facts of this case appear to be controlled by the Court's recent analysis in Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-3688-SKC-SBP, 2025 WL 3718159, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 23, 2025). Consequently, within five days of service, Respondents shall RESPOND to the Petition and SHOW CAUSE why the Petition shall not be granted. In their Response, Respondents must first address whether the present case differs factually or legally from Hernandez in any material respect, and if so, shall specify the material differences. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Pursuant to the All Writs Act, and in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, Respondents SHALL NOT REMOVE Petitioner from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order. SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 2/9/2026. Text Only Entry (skclc1) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#5

Feb 09, 2026

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter for non-dispositive matters. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, and (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions. Court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the request of the parties by motion, this Court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge, at their discretion, may convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. Counsel for the Parties and all counsel who may later enter an appearance shall review and familiarize themselves with the undersigned's Standing Order and Practice Standards, as well as the Practice Standards of the assigned Magistrate Judge. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 2/9/2026. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#6

Feb 09, 2026

NOTICE ENCOURAGING CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION: This district's magistrate judges play a crucial role in the work and structure of the district court and the administration of justice. Under Local Rule 72.2, the parties have the option to consent to their case being presided over by a magistrate judge instead of a district judge. This court encourages parties to meaningfully confer and consider consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction. There are many benefits to consenting. One such benefit is having a single judicial officer preside over every aspect of your case rather than two. A second benefit is the certainty of not having your trial date vacated when set before a magistrate judge. District judges preside over felony criminal cases and those cases receive priority over civil cases because of a criminal defendant's speedy trial rights. Magistrate judges do not preside over felony criminal cases, and therefore, they do not have to vacate civil trials because of criminal cases. If the parties do not choose to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, they should keep in mind Local Rule 72.3. Under this rule, the parties may consent to the final determination of a dispositive motion (motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss) by the assigned magistrate judge by filing a notice of consent for that motion. Please refer to Local Rule 72.3 for more information on that option. Consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction is voluntary, and no adverse consequence will result if one or more parties decline to consent. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 2/9/2026. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

Feb 09, 2026

Order

Feb 09, 2026

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

#7

Feb 17, 2026

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Winnie Wu on behalf of Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Robert Guadian, Todd Lyons, Kristi NoemAttorney Winnie Wu added to party Juan Baltazar(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party Pamela Bondi(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party Robert Guadian(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party Todd Lyons(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party Kristi Noem(pty:res) (Wu, Winnie) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#8

Feb 17, 2026

ANSWER to Complaint by Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Robert Guadian, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wu, Winnie) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#9

Feb 20, 2026

Order

#10

Feb 23, 2026

STATUS REPORT in response to Order at 9 by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Robert Guadian, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Wu, Winnie) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#11

Feb 23, 2026

ORDER re: 10 Status Report filed by Kristi Noem, Robert Guadian, Juan Baltazar, Todd Lyons, Pamela Bondi. In light of Respondents' report certifying their compliance, IT IS ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 2/23/2026. Text Only Entry (skclc1) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#12

Feb 23, 2026

Judgment

Feb 23, 2026

Minute Order