Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01026

#1

Feb 17, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21413225), filed by Santos Marina Garay Garcia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Renaud, Kymberly) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Farrer (rqr)

Feb 17, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (rqr)

Feb 18, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Feb 18, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Feb 19, 2026

Order

#3

Feb 20, 2026

Order

#4

Feb 20, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#5

Feb 27, 2026

Response

#6

Mar 03, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Jul 09, 2026

Order

#8

Jul 13, 2026

Order

#9

Aug 20, 2026

Supplement to

#10

Sep 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Petitioner claims that Respondents have violated procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment based on a significant presence in the United States and/or an improper revocation of release. Respondents have submitted a response in opposition. After reviewing the briefing, provided evidence, and applicable law, the Court grants the petition based on the law as set out and analyzed in Longoria Mendoza v. Noem, 823 F. Supp. 3d 636 (W.D. Tex. 2026) and numerous other cases decided by the undersigned. While there are differences between this case and Longoria Mendoza, none warrant a different result. The Court notes the en banc Fifth Circuit has stayed the district-court judgments pending rehearing in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, 183 F.4th 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2026) (per curiam). To the extent the Government might contend that this stay prevents district courts from granting habeas relief on procedural-due-process grounds while rehearing is pending, this Court does not read the order so broadly. The Court is unaware of any Fifth Circuit decision or order holding that the stay categorically bars adjudication of, or relief on, such claims. Other courts have continued to consider due-process claims under pre-panel-decision analyses, including Perozo-Mata v. Blanche, No. 4:26-CV-05679, 2026 WL 2195373, at *3 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2026). For reasons previously stated in Longoria Mendoza, the Court finds that (1) it has jurisdiction to consider the arguments presented in the instant habeas petition; (2) any asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused; (3) Respondents have violated Petitioner's procedural due process rights; and (4) fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 are not available in habeas corpus proceedings like this one. The Court treats the instant action solely as a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and declines to consider any claim other than the alleged violation of procedural due process. The Court has considered the arguments Respondents make in response and rejects them for reasons stated in prior cases. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court concludes Petitioner's detention is unlawful, and habeas relief is proper. Although Petitioner was picked up by immigration authorities from the Travis County Jail, she was merely there on an immigration hold and has no known criminal record. Respondents do not rely on any criminal history to support Petitioner's detention or oppose the habeas petition. Because Petitioner has no known criminal history, had been complying with the terms of a prior release, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before September 4, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Santos Marina Garay Garcia (sometimes referred to as Paula Rivera Morales), A # 221371981, from custody to a public location, under conditions no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner's counsel of the exact location and exact time of release as soon as practicable and no less than two hours before release. Any possible or anticipated removal or transfer of Petitioner under this present detention is PROHIBITED. No later than the next business day after the ordered release date, Respondents shall FILE a status report to confirm whether Petitioner has been released. If counsel for Petitioner disagrees with any aspect of the filed Status Report, counsel may file a separate Status Report. A written final judgment will be issued separately to summarize the orders of the Court and to close this habeas case. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rw) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

Sep 02, 2026

Order

#11

Sep 03, 2026

Judgment

#12

Sep 03, 2026

Status Report