District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-02629

#1

Jun 12, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11077051)Attorney Hans Christopher Meyer added to party Rafael Luzolano(pty:pet), filed by Rafael Luzolano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Meyer, Hans) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

#2

Jun 12, 2026

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Hans Christopher Meyer on behalf of Rafael Luzolano (Meyer, Hans) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

#3

Jun 12, 2026

NOTICE of Related Cases by Petitioner Rafael Luzolano (Meyer, Hans) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

#4

Jun 12, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Petitioner Rafael Luzolano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit)(Meyer, Hans) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

#5

Jun 12, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney and drawn to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Text Only Entry. (manoe, ) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

#6

Jun 15, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (manoe, ) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

#7

Jun 15, 2026

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Daniel Flores Herrera on behalf of Rafael LuzolanoAttorney Daniel Flores Herrera added to party Rafael Luzolano(pty:pet) (Herrera, Daniel) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

#8

Jun 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner Rafael Luzolano's Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, and Petitioner-Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 4 . In the Petition and Motion, Petitioner requests that the Court order his immediate release from immigration detention or, in the alternative, order that Respondents provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). See ECF No. 1 at 22; ECF No. 4 at 37-38. Having reviewed the Petition and Motion, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to, no later than two calendar days from the entry of this Order, (1) serve Respondents with copies of the Petition, the Motion, and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail and by overnight mail pursuant to the service requirements outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i); and (2) promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter notices of appearance. Within five (5) calendar days of service, Respondents are ORDERED TO RESPOND to the Petition and are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted. See, e.g., Yassine v. Collins, No. 1:25-cv-00786-ADA-SH, 2025 WL 1954064, at *1 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2025) (explaining that while § 2243 refers to a three day deadline, this requirement is "subordinate to the district court's authority to set deadlines" itself, and granting respondents a fourteen day deadline to respond in order to "give [r]espondents adequate time to brief the issues" (quotations omitted)). Further, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), 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. See also Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate, et. al, Case No. 1:25-cv-881, D. Colo., ECF No. 11 at 45 (collecting cases); F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603 (1966); Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. New York Shipping Ass'n, 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992). By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 6/15/2026. Text Only Entry (cnsja, ) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

Jun 15, 2026

Minute Order

#9

Jun 17, 2026

NOTICE Proof of Service by Petitioner Rafael Luzolano (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Herrera, Daniel) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#10

Jun 22, 2026

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Elliot Wertheim on behalf of Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez, David VenturellaAttorney Elliot Wertheim added to party Juan Baltazar(pty:res), Attorney Elliot Wertheim added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Elliot Wertheim added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Elliot Wertheim added to party George Valdez(pty:res), Attorney Elliot Wertheim added to party David Venturella(pty:res) (Wertheim, Elliot) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#11

Jun 22, 2026

CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez, David Venturella All parties do not consent.. (Wertheim, Elliot) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#12

Jun 22, 2026

ANSWER to Complaint by Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez, David Venturella.(Wertheim, Elliot) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#13

Jun 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court are Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. 1, and Respondents' response to it, ECF No. 12 . In their response, Respondents state that they "are not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case." ECF No. 12 at 2. In light of this representation and the Court's prior analyses of the fundamental legal issue that this case presents, see generally Singh v. Baltazar, 819 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (D. Colo. 2026), the Court GRANTS Petitioner's petition, ECF No. 1. See also Singh, 819 F. Supp. 3d at 1255 (ordering immediate release after concluding § 1225 did not control the petitioner's detention because, by having previously been released on parole, it was already determined that petitioner was not a flight risk or danger to the community). It is FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody immediately, but no later than within 24 hours of this Order, and may not impose any additional conditions of release or supervision beyond those he was subject to immediately prior to his recent detention. Respondents SHALL FILE a status report within TWO DAYS of this Order to certify compliance. Respondents are further ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified. At any such bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of proof. The Court notes that, while Respondents argue a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy, see ECF No. 12 at 2, their arguments fail to persuade. Compare ECF No. 10 at 5, with Singh, 2026 WL 352870, at *6; Diallo v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-CV-3548-SKC, 2026 WL 237296, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2026); and Rivero v. Mina, No. 6:26-CV-66-RBD-NWH, 2026 WL 199319, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2026). Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 4, is DENIED AS MOOT. By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 6/23/2026. Text Only Entry (cnsja, ) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

#14

Jun 23, 2026

ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See ECF No. 13. By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 6/23/2026. Text Only Entry(cnsja, ) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

Jun 23, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

Jun 23, 2026

Minute Order

#16

Jun 30, 2026

Judgment