Western District of Kentucky • 5:26-cv-00053

#1

Feb 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 300015354, filed by Fernando Alonso Campos Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet) (DJT) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#2

Feb 26, 2026

Case Assignment (Random Selection): Case Assigned to Judge Benjamin Beaton. (DJT) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

REMARK: Electronic notification of the petition and any subsequent order constitutes valid service on all federal respondents named therein as of the date of this remark pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which the Court is applying to these cases. (DJT)

Feb 26, 2026

Remark (Public)

#3

Mar 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court refers this matter to Magistrate Judge King for hearing and determining all pretrial matters, including non-dispositive motions. Judge King may conduct a settlement conference in this matter at any time. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached.cc: counsel (JM) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#4

Mar 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In response to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (DN 1 ), the Court directs the Respondents to show cause, no later than 3/3/26, why the writ should not be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Government should address next-friend standing. The Court also directs the parties to file, no later than 3/4/26, a joint status report or separate letters advising the Court whether they seek a hearing or instead prefer that the Court set a briefing schedule and decide the petition on the papers. The Clerk of Court shall forward by certified mail, return receipt requested, one copy of the petition and this order on each Respondent who has not been designated by the United States Attorney's Office, as agreed to by the Attorney's Office and the Clerk in the 1/20/26 Memorandum of Understanding, to receive electronic notice and service. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), Respondent Andelina Tuca (via certified mail with DN 1 Petition) (JM) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#5

Mar 02, 2026

Notice (Other)

Mar 02, 2026

Order - TEXT ONLY

#6

Mar 03, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#7

Mar 04, 2026

Status Report

#8

Mar 10, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Several habeas petitioners in similar cases have recently informed the Court that they are no longer in custody. Consistent with "the duty of counsel to bring to the federal tribunal's attention, without delay, facts that may raise a question of mootness," Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.23 (1997) (quotation marks omitted), the Court directs the parties to file a status report, within 7 days, stating whether the Petitioner remains in federal custody. Going forward, the parties must promptly file a status report if and when the Petitioner is released, including by removal or on bond. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached.cc: counsel, Petitioner (pro se) (JM) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

Mar 10, 2026

Order - TEXT ONLY

#9

Mar 13, 2026

Status Report

#10

Mar 19, 2026

Status Report

#11

Mar 30, 2026

Mail Returned

#12

Apr 24, 2026

Ruling

#13

Aug 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Carlos Jose Campos Marquez, proceeding pro se, filed the habeas petition on behalf of his son, Fernando Alonso Campos Perez. See Petition (DN 1 ) at 4. His son, he contends, cannot "prepare, sign, or file this petition" because he lacks "translation services" and "reliable access to legal materials." Petition (DN 1 ) at 5. Given the generous standards afforded to pro se litigants, Campos Marquez's status as the detainee's father, the apparent unavailability of "translation services" and other difficulties posed by the detainee's language barrier, and the Court's review of the pleadings and attachments, next-friend status is appropriate here. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) ("'next friend' must provide an adequate explanation- such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disabilitywhy the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action"). Other district courts in this circuit have likewise permitted immediate family members to proceed as next friends on behalf of aliens detained by ICE, at least where extenuating circumstances exist. See, e.g., Alcivar Lorenzo v. Raycraft, 2026 WL 369349, *2 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2026) ("[T]he petition and attached documents adequately demonstrate that the justice system is inaccessible to [the alien], who is detained in an ICE detention facility with limited English proficiency."). For its part, in response to the Court's show-cause order, the Government disputed only the next-friend's standing, without offering any lawful basis for its continued detention of his son. Response (DN 6 ) at 1. It hasn't rebutted Campos Marquez's contention that his son's detention, absent a bond hearing, is unlawful. Nor has it offered any reason to doubt that Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026), controls the outcome here. So the Court grants the Petitioner's motion for a ruling (DN 12 ) and directs the Government to either release the detainee or provide a bond hearing within 5 days and promptly update this Court on the outcome of any hearing, the status of the detainee, and any new or additional facts relevant to these proceedings. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. cc: Counsel, Petitioner (pro se) (JM) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#14

Aug 21, 2026

NOTICE of Release by Sylvia Bonaccorsi-Manno, Pamela Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem re 13 Order on Motion for Ruling,,,,,,,,,, (Thompson, Timothy) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

Aug 21, 2026

Order on Motion for Ruling