District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-00829

#1

Feb 27, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-10852480)Attorney Anya Lear added to party Juan Manuel Lopez Marquez(pty:pet), filed by Juan Manuel Lopez Marquez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Ex_1, # 3 Exhibit Ex_2, # 4 Exhibit Ex_3, # 5 Exhibit Ex_4, # 6 Exhibit Ex_5, # 7 Exhibit Ex_6, # 8 Exhibit Ex_7, # 9 Exhibit Ex_8, # 10 Exhibit Ex_9, # 11 Exhibit Ex_10, # 12 Exhibit Ex_11, # 13 Exhibit Ex_12, # 14 Exhibit Ex_13)(Lear, Anya) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#2

Feb 27, 2026

Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Text Only Entry (eguth, ) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#3

Feb 27, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (eguth, ) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#4

Mar 04, 2026

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on March 4, 2026. Upon review of Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition"), which requests, inter alia, that the court grant the Petition, "[i]ssue an Order to Show Cause... directing Respondents to show cause why this Petition should not be granted," and "[i]ssue a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from custody," it is ORDERED that Petitioner shall serve Respondents with a copy of the 1 Petition, and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail and overnight mail, on or before March 6, 2026. Petitioner shall promptly file proof of such service on the docket, and counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter their notices of appearance. Within seven days of service, Respondents shall RESPOND to the 1 Petition and SHOW CAUSE why the Petition shall not be granted. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a completed Magistrate Judge consent form (ECF No. 3 ) on or before March 13, 2026. Respondents are hereby enjoined from transferring Petitioner outside of the jurisdiction of the District of Colorado pending resolution of the 1 Petition. Text Only Entry (sbplc6, ) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 2026

Order

#5

Mar 09, 2026

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Kyle W. Brenton on behalf of Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Robert Hagan, Todd M. Lyons, Daren Margolin, Kristi NoemAttorney Kyle W. Brenton added to party Juan Baltazar(pty:res), Attorney Kyle W. Brenton added to party Pamela Bondi(pty:res), Attorney Kyle W. Brenton added to party Robert Hagan(pty:res), Attorney Kyle W. Brenton added to party Todd M. Lyons(pty:res), Attorney Kyle W. Brenton added to party Daren Margolin(pty:res), Attorney Kyle W. Brenton added to party Kristi Noem(pty:res) (Brenton, Kyle) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

#6

Mar 09, 2026

SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) Juan Baltazar served on 3/5/2026, answer due 5/4/2026; Pamela Bondi served on 3/5/2026, answer due 5/4/2026; Robert Hagan served on 3/5/2026, answer due 5/4/2026; Todd M. Lyons served on 3/5/2026, answer due 5/4/2026; Daren Margolin served on 3/5/2026, answer due 5/4/2026; Kristi Noem served on 3/5/2026, answer due 5/4/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 to Certificate of Service)(Lear, Anya) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

#7

Mar 10, 2026

CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Robert Hagan, Todd M. Lyons, Daren Margolin, Kristi Noem All parties consent.. (Brenton, Kyle) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

#8

Mar 10, 2026

Leave

#9

Mar 12, 2026

ORDER OF REFERENCE. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, Local Civil Rules 40.1(c)(6) and 72.2, and 7 Election Concerning Consent/Non-Consent to United States Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, this action is REFERRED for final disposition to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Judge Prose will conduct any and all further proceedings and order the entry of judgment in the case. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/12/2026. Text Only Entry (dddlc1, ) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#10

Mar 12, 2026

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on March 12, 2026. Respondents' 8 Motion to Exceed Page Limit is GRANTED as unopposed. Respondents may file a response to the 1 Petition of up to twenty (20) pages. Text Only Entry (sbplc6, ) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#11

Mar 12, 2026

RESPONSE to 4 Order,,,,, by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Robert Hagan, Todd M. Lyons, Daren Margolin, Kristi Noem. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Brenton, Kyle) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave

Mar 12, 2026

Order on Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge

#12

Mar 25, 2026

REPLY to 11 Response to Order to Show Cause by Petitioner Juan Manuel Lopez Marquez. (Lear, Anya) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#13

Apr 02, 2026

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on April 2, 2026. Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition") is DENIED without prejudice as premature. The court agrees with Respondents that because Petitioner's bond denial appeal remains pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), the 1 Petition is premature because Petitioner may prevail on appeal, which would render the 1 Petition moot. Petitioner does not deny that exhaustion is typically required in this context. See Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir. 2010) ("The exhaustion of available administrative remedies is a prerequisite for § 2241 habeas relief"). And although Petitioner argues that in his case, exhaustion is not required because he is "challeng[ing] the lawfulness of his continued detention and the denial of a meaningful opportunity to be heard in violation of due process" rather than the mere outcome of his bond determination and because exhaustion would be futile, ECF No. 12 at 7-8, he does not sufficiently explain why exhaustion would be futile vis-a-vis the concrete forms of relief he requests here. Even if, as Petitioner argues, the standard for burden of proof will inevitably be misapplied by the BIA upon appeal, Petitioner has not shown that this necessarily means that he will fail to receive the relief he requests. In other words, Petitioner could still obtain release on bond from the BIA even if he is made to bear the burden of proof on appeal, and thus administratively exhausting his claims still serves a purpose, even presuming that Petitioner's arguments regarding burden of proof are correct. And for clarity's sake, the court notes that it agrees with Respondents' assertion that if Petitioner obtains release on bond from the BIA, this would "moot[ ] the constitutional and statutory challenges Petitioner raises here." Torres v. Decker, No. 18-cv-10026-VEC, 2018 WL 6649609, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2018) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the court finds that despite Petitioner's arguments otherwise, Petitioner must administratively exhaust his claim before he petitions this court for relief. Therefore, the court, finding that it need not reach any of Petitioner or Respondents' other arguments, denies the 1 Petition on this ground. As a result, by no later than April 10, 2026, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. Text Only Entry (sbplc6, ) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

Apr 02, 2026

Order