Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01567

#1

Mar 09, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21533052), filed by Juan Estevan ROJAS CARVAJAL. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Petitioner's Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Petitioner's Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit Petitioner's Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit Petitioner's Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Petitioner's Exhibit 5)(Baeza Corona, Fernando) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

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

Mar 09, 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. (vnd)

Mar 10, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 10, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Mar 11, 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: 03/11/2026)

#3

Mar 18, 2026

Order

#4

Mar 18, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#5

Mar 25, 2026

Response

#6

Mar 26, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Apr 01, 2026

Brief

#8

May 20, 2026

Expedite

#9

May 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and DENYING 8 Motion to Expedite Ruling. The Court denies the motion as unnecessary because it has already expedited this matter to the extent possible through its standard practice with habeas petitions. It is purely coincidental that the Court reached this petition on the exact day Petitioner moved for an expedited ruling. 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. Because Petitioner has no known criminal history, has established a significant presence in the United States that requires due process protection, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before May 22, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Juan Estevan Rojas Carvjal 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: 05/20/2026)

May 20, 2026

Order on Motion to Expedite

#10

May 21, 2026

Judgment

#11

May 26, 2026

Status Report