District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-02953

#1

Jul 01, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11113554)Attorney Alec S. Bracken added to party Rafaela Gonzalez Frutos(pty:pet), filed by Rafaela Gonzalez Frutos.(Bracken, Alec) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#2

Jul 01, 2026

ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES: re: 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by attorney Alec Bracken. Attorney has used an incorrect signature format in violation of D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(a) and 4.3(a) of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil cases). DO NOT REFILE THE DOCUMENT. . In the future, the filer must use the correct format for the signature block on all future documents.(Text Only Entry) (manoe, ) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#3

Jul 01, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney and drawn to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Text Only Entry. (manoe, ) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#4

Jul 01, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (manoe, ) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 07, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Jul 15, 2026

RESPONSE to 5 Minute Order,,,,,,,, 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondent Markwayne MullinAttorney Leslie Carol Schulze added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res). (Schulze, Leslie) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#9

Jul 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court are Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. 1, and Respondent's response to it, ECF No. 8 . In the response, Respondent states that he is "not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition." ECF No. 8 at 1. In light of this representation, as well as the Tenth Circuit's recent decision holding that § 1225's mandatory detention provision does not apply to noncitizens who are apprehended while in the interior of the United States, see generally Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, et. al, No. 26-6019, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 1876709, *17 (10th Cir. June 30, 2026), the Court GRANTS Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. 1. It is ORDERED that Respondent 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 she was subject to immediately prior to her recent detention. Respondent SHALL FILE a status report within TWO DAYS of this Order to certify compliance. Respondent is further ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless Respondent demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that her physical custody is legally justified. At any such bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of proof. The Court notes that, while Respondent contends that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy, see ECF No. 8 at 1, this argument fail to persuade. Compare ECF No. 8 at 1, with Santillan Quiroz, 2026 WL 1876709 819, *17 n.13; see also, e.g., Singh v. Baltazar, 819 F. Supp. 3d 1247, 125051 (D. Colo. 2026). By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 7/15/2026. Text Only Entry (cnsja, ) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

Jul 15, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Jul 17, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Respondent Markwayne Mullin. (Schulze, Leslie) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#12

Aug 13, 2026

Judgment

Aug 13, 2026

Minute Order