Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02004

#2

Mar 24, 2026

CLERKS NOTICE Regarding Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. Parties notified, filed. (bsg4) [Transferred from Texas Southern on 3/27/2026.] (Entered: 03/24/2026)

Mar 24, 2026

Referral Judge Selected: Magistrate Judge Richard W. Bennett randomly selected to receive referrals. The selected Magistrate Judge is not assigned to this case until a District Judge refers the case or a motion or the parties consent to jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Once a referral has been made, the name of the referral judge will appear at the top of the docket sheet. (bsg4) [Transferred from Texas Southern on 3/27/2026.]

#3

Mar 26, 2026

ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE to The Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified. (gmh4) [Transferred from Texas Southern on 3/27/2026.] (Entered: 03/26/2026)

Mar 26, 2026

Interdistrict transfer to The Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. Case transferred electronically. Case terminated on 3/26/2026. (gmh4) [Transferred from Texas Southern on 3/27/2026.]

Mar 26, 2026

Remark (No Doc#)

#4

Mar 27, 2026

Case electronically transferred in from Southern District of Texas; Case Number 4:26-cv-02321. (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Mar 27, 2026

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

Mar 27, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 27, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

Mar 27, 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)

#5

Mar 30, 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: 03/30/2026)

#6

Mar 31, 2026

Order

#7

Mar 31, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#8

Apr 06, 2026

Response

#9

Apr 10, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#10

Apr 10, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#11

Jun 16, 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. 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 18, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Maribel Becerra Salcedo 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: 06/16/2026)

#12

Jun 16, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (cih) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

Jun 16, 2026

Order

#13

Jun 22, 2026

Advisory to the Court