Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02171

#1

Apr 01, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21682279), filed by TOMAS ALEJANDRO MACHADO-CALA,. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet COVER SHEET)(Waldron, John) (Entered: 04/01/2026)

#2

Apr 01, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by TOMAS ALEJANDRO MACHADO-CALA,. (Waldron, John) (Entered: 04/01/2026)

Apr 01, 2026

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

Apr 01, 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)

Apr 01, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Apr 01, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

Apr 02, 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: 04/02/2026)

#4

Apr 06, 2026

Order

#5

Apr 07, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#6

Apr 08, 2026

Text Order DENYING 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, or in the alternative, for a Preliminary Injunction. The relief Petitioner seeks through this motion essentially mirrors the ultimate relief sought on the merits of this already expedited proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Compare ECF No. 1 with ECF No. 2 . Such circumstances justify denying the motion and proceeding directly to the merits of the habeas petition itself. See, e.g., Garcia-Aleman v. Thompson, No. SA-25-CV-886-OLG, unpub. order at 12 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025) (collecting cases); Chambliss v. Ashcroft, No. 3:04-CV-0298-D, 2004 WL 718998, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2004) (recommendation of Mag. J.) (recommending denial of similar motion because preliminary relief sought was "the same as the relief sought through the habeas petition") adopted by No. 3:04-CV-0298-D, 2005 WL 724206 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2005). Indeed, prompt resolution is already contemplated by the nature of the writ itself. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("A court... entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted."); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 291 (1969) (reiterating that "the office of the writ is to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy" and habeas proceedings "must not be allowed to flounder in a 'procedural morass'"). The Court has already issued an Order for Service that enters a limited stay and expedites the briefing. For the reasons stated herein the Court denies the motion. Entered 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: 04/08/2026)

Apr 08, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#7

Apr 09, 2026

Response

#8

Apr 13, 2026

Response

#9

Apr 16, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#10

May 01, 2026

Advisory to the Court

#11

May 01, 2026

Advisory to the Court

#12

May 04, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings

#13

May 04, 2026

Status Conference

#14

Jun 17, 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, 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 June 19, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Tomas Alejandro Machado-Cala from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. If at the time of detention in February 2026, Petitioner was complying with terms of release imposed through an unexpired parole or other active release, the imposed appropriate conditions of release shall be 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: 06/17/2026)

#15

Jun 17, 2026

Judgment

Jun 17, 2026

Order

#16

Jun 22, 2026

Status Report