Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01444

#1

Mar 05, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21509820), filed by Armando Emmanuel Macias-Quintanilla. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bray, John) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

Mar 05, 2026

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

Mar 05, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Orlando L. Garcia. 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 05, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 05, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Mar 06, 2026

STANDING ORDER for procedure in cases before Judge Garcia. All parties and counsel are directed to review Judge Garcia's Standing Order containing rules of practice, particularly the requirement of conference before filing a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). 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 Orlando L. Garcia. (r013) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#3

Mar 10, 2026

Order

#4

Mar 10, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#5

Mar 18, 2026

Response

#6

Mar 23, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Mar 23, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#8

Mar 25, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Mar 26, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#9

Mar 27, 2026

Response

#10

Mar 31, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

#11

Apr 08, 2026

Status Report

#12

Jun 25, 2026

Enforce Judgment

Jun 29, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

Jun 29, 2026

Text Order DENYING 12 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Petitioner received a bond hearing in accordance with the Court's order. While Petitioner may be dissatisfied with the result of that hearing, it did not violate Petitioner's due process rights. The Court has repeatedly rejected the contention that due process requires the Government to justify detention by clear and convincing evidence and, instead, determined that requiring Petitioner to bear the burden of proof "does not offend [Petitioner's] right to due process." See Rahimi v. Thompson, No. 25-CV-1338-OLG, Dkt. No. 23 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2026). Entered by Judge Orlando L. Garcia. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ROlc)