Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02546

#1

Apr 17, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21783486), filed by Bendylove Murat. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet js-044 civil cover sheet, # 2 Exhibit Petitioner Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Petitioner Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit Petitioner Exhibit 3)(Hernandez, Guillermo) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

Apr 17, 2026

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

Apr 17, 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. (bt)

Apr 17, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#2

Apr 18, 2026

AMENDED COMPLAINT Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd M. Lyons, Daren K. Margolin, Markwayne Mullin, Bobby Thompson, Miguel Vergara amending 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,., filed by Bendylove Murat. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pet Ex. 1, # 2 Exhibit Pet Ex. 2, # 3 Exhibit Pet Ex. 3, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet js-44)(Hernandez, Guillermo) (Entered: 04/18/2026)

#3

Apr 20, 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: 04/20/2026)

#4

Apr 27, 2026

Text ORDER FOR SERVICE of 2 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is ORDERED that notice of electronic filing of 2 Amended Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney in San Antonio, Texas shall constitute service on the Federal Respondents and on all Respondents unless otherwise contested. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response to the Amended Petition within seven (7) days of the date of service. The response must identify: (1) Petitioner's alleged country of birth, so that Petitioner can be located in the Online Detainee Locator System; (2) Petitioner's alleged date of entry and statutory basis for removability; (3) any previous immigration detention history, e.g., whether Petitioner has previously been subject to immigration detention and, if so, the approximate date of Petitioner's previous release into the interior; and (4) Petitioner's alleged immigration status, e.g., whether Petitioner has a pending claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture or is subject to a final removal order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner elects to file a reply, Petitioner may do so no later than seven days after the Respondents file their answers/responses. 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: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

Order

#5

May 04, 2026

RESPONSE Federal Respondents' Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Todd M. Lyons, Daren K. Margolin, Markwayne Mullin, Miguel Vergara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cordova, Anne Marie) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

#6

Jun 25, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 2 AMENDED 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. Indeed, out of the claims asserted, the Court's decision rests entirely on the claim premised on the improper revocation of Petitioners prior release. At the time of his detention, Petitioner was reporting as required by his prior active release. 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 27, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Bendylove Murat 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: 06/25/2026)

Jun 25, 2026

Order

#7

Jun 29, 2026

Judgment

#8

Jun 29, 2026

Status Report