District of Nevada • 2:26-cv-00541

#1

Feb 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANVDC-8386260) by Victor Alfonso Alfaro Quintanilla. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Cooley Yonesawa, Alissa) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#2

Feb 26, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Plaintiff Victor Alfonso Alfaro Quintanilla. (Cooley Yonesawa, Alissa) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#3

Feb 26, 2026

TRANSFER ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to transfer Case No. 2:26-cv-00541-APG-NJK to Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is instructed to administratively RELATE this matter to Case No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC. All further documents must bear the correct case number 2:26-cv-00541-APG-NJK. Signed by Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon and Judge Richard F. Boulware on 2/26/2026. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#4

Feb 26, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Writ should not be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Respondents shall file, in writing, a (i) notice of appearance and (ii) a return certifying the true cause of detention on or before March 2, 2026. See id. Petitioner may file a traverse on or before March 5, 2026. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 2/27/2026, counsel for Petitioner shall supplement the Petition with an attorney verification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to: 1. ADD the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada to the docket as an Interested Party. Pursuant to the District of Nevadas General Order 2026-03 (Feb 13, 2026), this constitutes service on all federal respondents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 2. Then, SEND them a copy of the 1 Petition, attachments (ECF Nos. 1 -1, 2 ), and this Order through CM/ECF. 3. MAIL a copy of 1 Petition, attachments (ECF Nos. 1 -1, 2 ), and this Order pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Respondents: See order. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/26/2026. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

Case randomly assigned to Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon and Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe. Nature of Suit: 463 - Habeas Immigration (HAM)

Feb 26, 2026

Assign Judges in Civil Case

#5

Feb 27, 2026

Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus Amended

#6

Mar 02, 2026

Stipulation

#7

Mar 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/3/2026. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 6 Stipulation is GRANTED. The deadline for Federal Respondents to file a response to the Order to Show Cause is extended from March 2, 2026, to March 5, 2026. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CMB) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

Mar 03, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Stipulation

#8

Mar 05, 2026

Response

#9

Mar 05, 2026

Notice Appearance of Counsel

#10

Mar 06, 2026

Order

#11

Mar 06, 2026

Judgment

#12

Mar 11, 2026

Status Report

#13

Mar 11, 2026

Status Report

#14

Mar 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/13/2026.The Court has reviewed the parties' 12 13 Status Reports. The Court finds DHS has imposed Alternatives to Detention (ATD), including electronic monitoring, on Petitioner, despite taking no position that Petitioner is dangerous or a flight risk at the March 9, 2026, Court-ordered bond hearing. The IJ granted Petitioner bond in the minimum amount of $1,500 and did not grant discretion to DHS to impose ATD. See ECF No. 143 at 4-5. DHS waived appeal of that decision. Id. The imposition of release conditions, such as electronic monitoring, can be a significant constraint on a habeas petitioner's liberty, such that they are still "in custody" for purposes of § 2241. See Munoz v. Smith, 17 F.4th 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court agrees with other district courts in the Ninth Circuit who have found that the imposition of ATD by DHS on a habeas petitioner supports the conclusion that the petitioner remains "in custody." See, e.g., N.Y.V.D. v. Santracruz, 5:25-CV-03404-WLH-SP, 2026 WL 45268 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026). There is no evidence in the record before the Court that Respondents provided Petitioner with a constitutionally adequate hearing to determine the appropriateness of DHS's significant restraint on Petitioner's liberty in the form of electronic monitoring and other ATD conditions. To the contrary, at the hearing, DHS provided no justification for such a restraint. Nor have Respondents cited any legal authority establishing DHS's authority to impose such a restraint unilaterally, where an IJ declined to grant such discretion after a custody redetermination hearing.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Federal Respondents are ENJOINED from continuing to restrain Petitioner's liberty, including but not limited to using a 24/7 electronic monitor or other similar restraints, without leave of this Court.Federal Respondents must file a certificate of compliance with this Order no later than 3/16/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

Mar 13, 2026

Minute Order

#15

Mar 16, 2026

Certificate Compliance