District of New Mexico • 2:26-cv-01475

#1

May 08, 2026

PETITION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2241, filed by Adrian Rey Gomez. (eh) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#2

May 08, 2026

NOTICE: In accordance with the Standing Order, filed January 28, 2026 in 26-MC-00004-03 (Doc. 3), the Clerk of Court provides notice of completion of electronic service. A copy of the petition in this matter was provided to all federal respondents by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. The parties should review the Standing Order, and any further Orders entered in this matter regarding the deadline to respond to the petition. (eh)[THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (Entered: 05/08/2026)

May 08, 2026

United States District Judge Kea W. Riggs and United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough assigned. (eh)

#3

May 14, 2026

ORDER TO ANSWER by District Judge Kea W. Riggs: The USAO shall ANSWER the Petition and any pending motions for release within 10 business days. Any outstanding filing fees are due within 30 days, if Petitioner has not already paid the $5.00 fee. Petitioner may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in lieu of payment. The Clerk's Office shall confirm that the docket lists the following Respondents: the facility Warden; the El Paso Field Office Director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons; and Markwayne Mullin. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (atc) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

May 14, 2026

Order to Answer

#4

May 18, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Natasha Moghadam on behalf of Todd Blanche, Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin (Moghadam, Natasha) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

#5

May 28, 2026

RESPONSE re 1 Petition for 2241 Relief filed by Mary De Anda-Ybarra. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Moghadam, Natasha) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#6

Jun 01, 2026

ORDER by District Judge Kea W. Riggs granting in part re 1 Petition for 2241 Relief filed by Adrian Rey Gomez (bap) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#7

Jun 01, 2026

JUDGMENT by District Judge Kea W. Riggs. (bap) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#8

Jun 02, 2026

Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number 1010887 (nnd)[THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (Entered: 06/02/2026)

Jun 02, 2026

Filing Fee Received

#9

Jun 10, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Todd Blanche (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Moghadam, Natasha) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

#10

Jun 15, 2026

MOTION to Enforce Court Order by Adrian Rey Gomez. (bap) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

#11

Aug 21, 2026

NOTICE of Filing Receipt of Appeal by Adrian Rey Gomez (arp) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#12

Sep 29, 2026

MOTION for Review of Case by Adrian Rey Gomez. (bap) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#13

Oct 13, 2026

ORDER by District Judge Kea W. Riggs denying 10 Motion to Enforce Judgment; denying 12 ORDER on Motion to Review: The Court has reviewed the docket and the record before the Court. The Court granted in part Petitioner's habeas petition and ordered Respondents to hold an individualized bond hearing. Respondents held an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge, who denied bond or release, finding that Petitioner is a danger to the community and/or flight risk. Now, Petitioner requests that the Court enforce its judgment and order his release. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the immigration judge did not hold an individualized bond hearing in compliance with the Court's order. The Court "retains jurisdiction to enforce its lawful judgments, including habeas judgments." Gall v. Scroggy, 603 F.3d 346, 352 (6th Cir. 2010); Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir. 1992) (explaining that district court has authority to enforce its habeas judgment). And the Court has jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the application of § 1226. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516-17 (2003) (holding that "Section 1226(e) contains no explicit provision barring habeas review, and... its clear text does not bar [a petitioner's] constitutional challenge"); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 295 (2018). And the Court has jurisdiction over constitutional challenges brought by detainees as to their detention. But the Court does not have jurisdiction to review an immigration judge's discretionary bond decision. Under § 1226(e), "[n]o court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under [§ 1226] regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole." "This provision precludes the Court from reviewing the IJ's decision that denied bond because Petitioner was a flight risk." Mwangi v. Terry, 465 F. App'x 784, 786-87 (10th Cir. 2012) ("Therefore, to the extent Mr. Mwangi challenges the agency's discretionary bond decision, the magistrate judge was correct that the court lacked jurisdiction."). Here, an immigration judge held an individualized bond hearing and complied with the Court's order. In the alternative, assuming the Court has jurisdiction, the Court would not set aside the immigration judge's decision. However, the Court has jurisdiction to consider constitutional violations at the bond hearing. A fundamental aspect of due process is notice and the opportunity to be heard. See In re C.W. Mining Co., 625 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir. 2010) ("The Supreme Court has consistently held that due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard."). A noncitizen is entitled at least to fundamental fairness at a bond hearing. "An alien: (1) is entitled to factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to him or her; (2) must be allowed to make arguments on his or her own behalf; and (3) has the right to an individualized determination of his [or her] interests." Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022) (unpublished). Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the immigration judge violated the constitution at the bond hearing or failed to comply with the Court's order. All pending motions are denied. THIS IS A TEXT ONLY ENTRY, NO DOCUMENTS ARE ATTACHED (cab) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

Oct 13, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment AND Order on Motion to Review