Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01403

#1

Mar 04, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21499689), filed by Neri Orbegoso. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(Gulen, Muhammed) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#2

Mar 04, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as found in document 1 by Neri Montoya Orbegoso. (rqr) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 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)

Mar 04, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

Mar 04, 2026

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

Mar 04, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

Mar 04, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#3

Mar 05, 2026

STANDING ORDER for procedure in cases before Judge Pulliam. All parties and counsel are directed to review Judge Pulliam's Standing Order containing rules of practice, particularly the requirement of conference before filing a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and demonstration of complete diversity. Failure to follow these rules of practice could result in the Court striking the Motion to Dismiss on its own initiative without further notice. Signed by Judge Jason Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#4

Mar 05, 2026

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Muhammed Gulen ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number ATXWDC-21508052) by on behalf of Neri Montoya Orbegoso. (Gulen, Muhammed) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#5

Mar 13, 2026

Order

#6

Mar 13, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Mar 16, 2026

Text Order DENYING 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The local rules of this Court require that such a motion be made in an instrument separate from the complaint. See W.D. Tex. Civ. R. 65. Additionally, the relief Petitioner seeks through this motion essentially mirrors the ultimate relief sought on the merits of this already expedited proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Such circumstances justify denying the motion and proceeding directly to the merits of the habeas petition itself. See, e.g., Garcia-Aleman v. Thompson, No. SA-25-CV-886-OLG, unpub. order at 12 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025) (collecting cases); Chambliss v. Ashcroft, No. 3:04-CV-0298-D, 2004 WL 718998, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2004) (recommendation of Mag. J.) (recommending denial of similar motion because preliminary relief sought was "the same as the relief sought through the habeas petition") adopted by No. 3:04-CV-0298-D, 2005 WL 724206 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2005). Indeed, prompt resolution is already contemplated by the nature of the writ itself. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("A court... entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted."); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 291 (1969) (reiterating that "the office of the writ is to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy" and habeas proceedings "must not be allowed to flounder in a 'procedural morass'"). The Court has already issued an Order for Service that enters a limited stay and expedites the briefing. For the reasons stated herein the Court denies the motion. Entered 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: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#8

Mar 17, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#9

Mar 19, 2026

Response

#10

Mar 23, 2026

Brief

#11

Mar 24, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#12

May 18, 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, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, No 5:26-CV-0728-JKP, 2026 WL 809441 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026) and numerous other cases decided by the undersigned. While there are differences between this case and Longoria Mendoza, none warrant a different result. 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. In this case, Petitioner was released on an Order of Recognizance after presenting herself and her children at a point of entry on March 3, 2023. She was placed into an Intensive Supervision Appearance Program as an Alternative to Detention ("ATD"). The terms of her release required appearances at immigration court hearings, attending check-ins, submitting weekly photographic check-ins, home visits, and telephonic and in-person reporting. By all accounts, she complied with the vast majority of these terms and all major ones. She disputes the legitimacy and accuracy of an investigative record dated the same date of her detention which states that she had five "ATD" violations (two missed biometric check-ins, two failed home visits, and one successful check-in outside the designated zone), all occurring between August 2023 and April 2025. Regardless, for nearly three years, Petitioner established a life in the United States without a criminal history and at worst substantial compliance with the terms of her release until she was detained at a standard immigration check-in on February 11, 2026. Even accepting the truth of the release violations, such infractions do not change Respondents' violation of procedural due process based on Petitioner's significant presence in the United States. That is enough to warrant habeas relief whether or not the alleged infractions provide any basis for revoking Petitioner's release--a matter that the Court need not decide. Because Petitioner has no known criminal history, had been at worst substantially complying with the terms of her prior release, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before May 20, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Neri Montoya Orbegoso from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. 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: 05/18/2026)

#13

May 18, 2026

Judgment

May 18, 2026

Order

#14

May 21, 2026

Status Report