Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02111

#1

Mar 30, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21664134), filed by Martin Tellez Ortiz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Rodriguez, Juan) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

Mar 30, 2026

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

Mar 30, 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. (mgr)

Mar 30, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 30, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Mar 31, 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: 03/31/2026)

#3

Mar 31, 2026

ORDER FOR SERVICE--Federal Respondents are ORDERED to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus no later than April 7, 2026. This Order does not restrict Respondents from filing an abbreviated response should they deem such response appropriate considering the detention issues raised. Any such abbreviated response should identify similar cases resolved in the Western District of Texas and indicate that there are no material factual or legal differences between this case and those cases. Such an abbreviated response will preserve the legal arguments previously made by the Federal Respondents in the cases they identify. Petitioner shall have seven days from the date a response is filed to file any reply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any possible or anticipated removal or transfer is IMMEDIATELY STAYED until further order from this Court. Respondents shall not transfer the above-named Petitioner outside of this judicial district during the pendency of this litigation and until further Order of this Court allowing removal or transfer. Of course, this stay does not preclude 2Respondents from taking necessary steps to effect Petitioners removal, it merely stays the physical removal or transfer of Petitioner.. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (mgr) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

#4

Apr 01, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#5

Apr 07, 2026

Response

#6

Apr 09, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Apr 14, 2026

Response

#8

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 Martin Tellez Ortiz 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)

#9

Jun 16, 2026

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

Jun 16, 2026

Order

#10

Jun 22, 2026

Status Report