Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02278

#1

Apr 06, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 10884), filed by Adriel Torres-Subirat. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Envelope, # 3 Receipt)(r013) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

Apr 06, 2026

Case has been randomly assigned to the docket of Honorable Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (kc)

Apr 06, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad (kc)

#2

Apr 10, 2026

Case Opening Letter mailed to Adriel Torres-Subirat. (kc) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

Apr 10, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Apr 10, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

Apr 13, 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: 04/13/2026)

#4

Apr 14, 2026

ORDER FOR SERVICE--Federal Respondents are ORDERED to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus no later than April 21, 2026. To the extent not provided by Petitioner, Respondents shall include relevant information and supporting documentation concerning Petitioners arrival, release (if any), and re-detention if applicable. This is to include, at a minimum, applicable dates and circumstances. 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. (bt) (Entered: 04/15/2026)

#5

Apr 15, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt as to Stephanie Rico, Civil Process Clerk of 4 Order,, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (bt) (Entered: 04/15/2026)

#6

Apr 21, 2026

RESPONSE TO PETITION by Attorney General of the United States, U.S Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Ripley, Nathan) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#7

Apr 24, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#8

Apr 29, 2026

Response

#9

Jun 19, 2026

Notice of Attorney Appearance

#10

Jun 19, 2026

Notice

#11

Jun 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Liberally construing Petitioner's pro se petition filed before counsel entered an appearance and considering 10 Counseled Notice of Supplemental Authority, Clarification of Petitioner's Claim, and Request for Prompt Resolution, 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. 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 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 24, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Adriel Torres-Subirat 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: 06/22/2026)

#12

Jun 22, 2026

Judgment AND ~Util - Set/Clear Flags

Jun 22, 2026

Order

#13

Jun 25, 2026

Status Report