District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-01034

#1

Mar 13, 2026

Administrative Notice: No initiating document. Attorney contacted with instructions to file the initiating document within 24 hours. (Text Only Entry) (dhern, ) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#2

Mar 13, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-10878624)Attorney Mario Daniel Nicolais, II added to party Atef Mohamed(pty:pet), filed by Atef Mohamed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petition Exhibit Packet)(Nicolais, Mario) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#3

Mar 13, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Petitioner Atef Mohamed. (Nicolais, Mario) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#4

Mar 13, 2026

Case assigned to Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico and drawn to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Text Only Entry. (agarc, ) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#5

Mar 13, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (agarc, ) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#6

Mar 13, 2026

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 3 Motion for Issuance of Order to Show Cause.The petitioner must serve the respondents with 2 Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The petitioner need not serve a summons with a copy of the petition. The petitioner must promptly file proof of service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l)(1).Having reviewed the petition, I find that good cause appears, and it is therefore ORDERED that the respondents must SHOW CAUSE within three weeks after service of the petition why the application for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. The petitioner may file a reply within two weeks of service of the response(s).SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/13/2026. Text Only Entry (dddlc1, ) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#7

Mar 13, 2026

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of Local Civ. R. 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, (4) conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions, and (5) pursuant to Local Civ. R. 16.6 and at the discretion of the Magistrate Judge, convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/13/2026. Text Only Entry (dddlc1, ) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

Mar 13, 2026

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

Mar 13, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause

#8

Mar 23, 2026

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Atef Mohamed. Juan Baltazar served on 3/16/2026, answer due 4/6/2026; Pamela Bondi served on 3/20/2026, answer due 4/10/2026; Todd Lyons served on 3/20/2026, answer due 4/10/2026; Kristi Noem served on 3/20/2026, answer due 4/10/2026; George Valdez served on 3/16/2026, answer due 4/6/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - USPS Receipt, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - USPS Certified Mail Labels, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C - USPS Tracking Results)(Nicolais, Mario) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#9

Mar 25, 2026

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Leslie Carol Schulze on behalf of Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, George ValdezAttorney Leslie Carol Schulze added to party Juan Baltazar(pty:res), Attorney Leslie Carol Schulze added to party Pamela Bondi(pty:res), Attorney Leslie Carol Schulze added to party Todd Lyons(pty:res), Attorney Leslie Carol Schulze added to party Kristi Noem(pty:res), Attorney Leslie Carol Schulze added to party George Valdez(pty:res) (Schulze, Leslie) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#10

Mar 26, 2026

CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, George Valdez All parties consent.. (Schulze, Leslie) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#11

Mar 27, 2026

Order on Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge

#12

Apr 07, 2026

ANSWER to Complaint by Juan Baltazar, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, George Valdez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Schulze, Leslie) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#13

Apr 09, 2026

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on April 9, 2026. Petitioner's 2 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition") is GRANTED. The parties appear to agree that Petitioner is currently detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), that Petitioner became subject to a final order of removal on July 18, 2025, that the ninety-day removal period provided for under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 has since concluded, and that Petitioner has been detained for approximately ten months since his removal order became final. The parties also agree that pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), despite the ninety-day removal period provided for under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, detention of a noncitizen for up to six months under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is "presumptively reasonable." Id. at 700-01. And the parties further agree that after six months, if "the [noncitizen] provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the [g]overnment must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing." Id. at 701. If not, the noncitizen must be released. The court finds that Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. As Petitioner asserts and Respondents seemingly acknowledge, Petitioner cannot be removed to his country of origin, Egypt, because he has been granted withholding of removal to Egypt, and Respondents have failed to indicate that he is likely to be removed to any third country in the reasonably foreseeable future. See, e.g., Aguilar v. Noem, 25-cv-03463-NYW, 2025 WL 3514282, at *4 (D. Colo. Dec. 8, 2025) (noting that courts have found petitioners' burdens to be satisfied "where, for example, a habeas petitioner shows that some impediment precludes removal to their country of origin" and collecting cases). And Respondents have not even attempted to rebut this showing. In response to these arguments, Respondents state only that "[a]t this time, Respondents do not have additional information to present to the Court concerning their efforts to remove Petitioner to a third country." ECF No. 12 at 5. Accordingly, the court finds cause to grant the 2 Petition and release Petitioner immediately under appropriate conditions of supervision, the appropriate remedy under the circumstances alleged here. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700. The court therefore orders Respondents to release Petitioner within one day of the date of this order under appropriate conditions of supervision. Respondents are also ordered to file a status report in order to certify compliance within ten days of the issuance of this order. Text Only Entry (sbplc6, ) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

Apr 09, 2026

Order