Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01664

#1

Mar 05, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Daniela Maria Bustamante Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Copy of Envelope).(tt) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#2

Mar 05, 2026

MOTION requesting court assistance with service by Daniela Maria Bustamante Lopez. (tt) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

Mar 05, 2026

THIS CASE HAS BEEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JASON K. PULLIAM. (tt)

Mar 05, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Chestney. (tt)

Mar 13, 2026

Remark (No Doc#)

Mar 13, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

Mar 17, 2026

ORDER FOR SERVICE. The Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to furnish a copy of the Petition and this Order to the Office of the United States Attorney in San Antonio, Texas. Federal Respondents are ORDERED to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus no later than Tuesday, March 24, 2026. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any possible or anticipated removal or transfer isIMMEDIATELY STAYED until further order from this Court.. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (rqr) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#4

Mar 17, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt of 3 Order, along with 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (rqr) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

Mar 18, 2026

Text Order MOOTING 2 Petitioner's Motion Requesting Court Assistance with Service entered by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. The Court rendered a service order on March 17, 2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ks1)

Mar 18, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#5

Mar 24, 2026

Response

#6

Mar 25, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Jun 04, 2026

Notice of Attorney Appearance

#8

Jun 12, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Liberally construing Petitioner's pro se petition filed before counsel entered an appearance, 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. Indeed, out of the claims asserted, the Court's decision rests entirely on the claim premised on the improper revocation of the prior release. 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, had been complying with the terms of a prior release, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before June 14, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Daniela Maria Bustamante Lopez from custody to a public location, under conditions no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. 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: 06/12/2026)

#9

Jun 12, 2026

Judgment

Jun 12, 2026

Order

#10

Jun 15, 2026

Status Report