District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-01451

#1

Apr 06, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-10928000)Attorney Skylar Madison Larson added to party Ever Cruz Cruz(pty:pet), filed by Ever Cruz Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Larson, Skylar) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#2

Apr 06, 2026

Case assigned to Judge S. Kato Crews and drawn to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara. Text Only Entry (eguth, ) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

#3

Apr 06, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (eguth, ) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

#4

Apr 08, 2026

ORDER Upon review of the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is ORDERED that Petitioner shall SERVE Respondents, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1) & (2), with a copy of the Petition and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail and by overnight registered or certified mail, on or before April 15, 2026. Petitioner shall promptly file proof of such service on the docket, and counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter their notices of appearance. Within 5 days of service, Respondents shall RESPOND to the Petition and SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Pursuant to the All Writs Act, and in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, Respondents SHALL NOT REMOVE Petitioner from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order. SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 4/08/2026.Text Only Entry (skclc4) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

Apr 08, 2026

Order

#5

Apr 10, 2026

AFFIDAVIT/RETURN of Service of ECF Nos. 1 and 4 upon Juan Baltazar, George Valdez, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche, and Kevin Traskos on 04/09/2026, filed by Petitioner Ever Cruz Cruz (Larson, Skylar) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#6

Apr 14, 2026

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Michael Conrad Johnson on behalf of Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, George ValdezAttorney Michael Conrad Johnson added to party Juan Baltazar(pty:res), Attorney Michael Conrad Johnson added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Michael Conrad Johnson added to party Todd Lyons(pty:res), Attorney Michael Conrad Johnson added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Michael Conrad Johnson added to party George Valdez(pty:res) (Johnson, Michael) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#7

Apr 17, 2026

Extension of Time

#8

Apr 20, 2026

ORDER re 7 Motion for Two-Day Extension of Time to Respond to Order to Show Cause (ECF no. 4): The Court rules on the Motion without awaiting a response from Petitioner. For good cause, Respondents are granted an extension of up to and including April 22, 2026, to respond to the Order to Show Cause (ECF no. 4). By Judge S. Kato Crews on 4/20/2026. Text Only Entry(skcja, ) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

Apr 20, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

#9

Apr 22, 2026

ANSWER to Complaint by Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Johnson, Michael) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#10

Apr 23, 2026

REPLY to 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Petitioner Ever Cruz Cruz. (Larson, Skylar) (Entered: 04/23/2026)

#11

May 04, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Petitioner Ever Cruz Cruz. (Larson, Skylar) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

#12

May 04, 2026

Order

#13

May 05, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Reconsideration re 12 Order by Petitioner Ever Cruz Cruz. (Larson, Skylar) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#14

May 05, 2026

ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner's 13 Emergency Motion for Reconsideration. "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration." Rivera v. Exeter Finance Corp., No. 15-cv-01057-PAB-MEH, 2019 WL 6173666, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 19, 2019) (citing Hatfield v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Converse Cnty., 52 F.3d 858, 861 (10th Cir. 1995)). The bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited: "[g]rounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing." Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). These motions are committed to the trial court's discretion. See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997).The Court does not find that the limited bases for granting a motion for reconsideration have been met here. Petitioner's focus is on Respondents' failure to produce the allegedly threatening text messages: he argues that without the text messages the immigration judge cannot "determine what was said, to whom it was directed, whether it was a true threat, whether it was an expression of frustration, whether it was taken out of context, or whether Respondents exaggerated the messages to justify a detention decision already made." Dkt. 13, p.4. However, these are the arguments Petitioner is free to make before the immigration judge at his bond hearing. It is not the job of this Court to decide whether Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk, as Petitioner suggests. Id. at p.6. Again, the immigration judge will consider the evidence and arguments made at the bond hearing.Petitioner also suggests that if the Court declines to order immediate release, it should require, among other things, that DHS produce the alleged text messages and that the immigration judge may not rely on the alleged text messages unless Petitioner receives them in advance of the hearing. Petitioner cites no authority in support of his contention, and the Court is aware of none. Accordingly, Petitioner's 13 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 5/5/2026.Text Only Entry (skclc4) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

May 05, 2026

Order on Motion for Reconsideration

#15

May 06, 2026

Emergency MOTION to Clarify re 12 Order by Petitioner Ever Cruz Cruz. (Larson, Skylar) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#16

May 06, 2026

Respondents are HEREBY ORDERED to file a Response to Petitioner's 15 Emergency Motion to Clarify by close of business on May 7, 2026. Petitioner shall not be permitted to file a Reply without leave of court. SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 5/6/2026.Text Only Entry (skclc4) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

May 06, 2026

Order

#17

May 07, 2026

RESPONSE to 15 Emergency MOTION to Clarify re 12 Order filed by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez. (Johnson, Michael) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#18

May 08, 2026

Before the Court is Petitioner's 15 Emergency Motion to Clarify the burden of proof at the bond hearing this Court ordered when it granted Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Dkt. 12. Respondents filed their 17 Response on May 7, 2026. Respondents argue that the Court should deny the Motion to Clarify because Petitioner did not raise the burden of proof issue in his Petition, thus, "[t]here is nothing to clarify in this Court's Order as to the burden of proof at a later hearing." Dkt. 17, p.4. However, Petitioner's failure to address the burden of proof issue is not surprising where the relief he sought in his Petition was immediate release. Dkt. 1. This Court has broad discretion in fashioning remedies for habeas relief, and here, decided a bond hearing was the appropriate form of relief. See Franklin v. Lucero, No. 22-2125, 2023 WL 2962260, at *7 (10th Cir. Apr. 17, 2023). Accordingly, Petitioner's failure to discuss the burden of proof in his Petition is of no consequence.Similarly, Respondents argue that in the 13 Emergency Motion for Reconsideration which this Court denied, Petitioner raised the burden of proof issue, thus, the Court already considered and denied the argument. Dkt. 17, p.3. However, the Court's Order 14 denying the Motion for Reconsideration does not explicitly address the burden of proof, so the Motion to Clarify is well-taken.This Court previously addressed the burden of proof issue in Guevara Garcia v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-01012-SKC, 2026 WL 835766 (D. Colo. Mar. 26, 2026) and incorporates and adopts that reasoning in full here.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that at the bond hearing, Respondents shall bear the burden of proving risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence and dangerousness to any other person or the community by clear and convincing evidence.SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 5/8/2026.Text Only Entry (skclc4) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

May 08, 2026

Order on Motion to Clarify

#19

May 14, 2026

Enforce

#20

May 14, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez. (Johnson, Michael) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#21

Jun 04, 2026

RESPONSE to 19 MOTION to Enforce 18 Order on Motion to Clarify,,,,,,, 12 Order filed by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez. (Johnson, Michael) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

#22

Jun 22, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce