Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02024

#1

Mar 24, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 10735), filed by Gustavo Pineda Castro. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Envelope, # 3 Receipt)(r013) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

#2

Mar 24, 2026

Case Opening Letter sent to Gustavo Pineda Castro. (bc) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

Mar 24, 2026

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

Mar 24, 2026

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

Apr 02, 2026

Remark (No Doc#)

Apr 02, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

Apr 03, 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. Delivery of those same documents by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall constitute sufficient service of process on the Federal Respondents. Federal Respondents are ORDERED to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus no later than April 10, 2026. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any possible or anticipated removal or transfer is IMMEDIATELY STAYED until further order from this Court.. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (rqr) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#4

Apr 06, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt of 3 Order, along with 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (rqr) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#5

Apr 10, 2026

Response

#6

Apr 16, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Apr 20, 2026

Response

#8

Apr 23, 2026

Supplement to

#9

Jun 25, 2026

Advisory to the Court

#10

Jun 26, 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, 823 F. Supp. 3d 636 (W.D. Tex. 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 28, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Gustavo Pineda Castro from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. If at the time of detention in December 2025, 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, if any, 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. 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.) (lc) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#11

Jun 26, 2026

Judgment

Jun 26, 2026

Order

#12

Jun 29, 2026

Status Report