Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-05722

#1

Sep 04, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-22602461), filed by S.Z.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Marouf, Fatma) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

Sep 09, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

Sep 09, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#2

Sep 10, 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: 09/10/2026)

#3

Sep 10, 2026

Text ORDER FOR SERVICE of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is ORDERED that notice of electronic filing of 1 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 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: 09/10/2026)

Sep 10, 2026

Order

#4

Sep 17, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, Miguel Vergara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Anderson, Edmond) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#5

Sep 18, 2026

BRIEF (Reply) regarding 4 Response by S.Z.. (Marouf, Fatma) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#6

Sep 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 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 and Petitioner has filed her reply. The Court has expedited this matter because Petitioner is set to commence her college education on a full scholarship.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. The Court notes the en banc Fifth Circuit has stayed the district-court judgments pending rehearing in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, 183 F.4th 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2026) (per curiam). To the extent the Government might contend that this stay prevents district courts from granting habeas relief on procedural-due-process grounds while rehearing is pending, this Court does not read the order so broadly. The Court is unaware of any Fifth Circuit decision or order holding that the stay categorically bars adjudication of, or relief on, such claims. Other courts have continued to consider due-process claims under pre-panel-decision analyses, including Perozo-Mata v. Blanche, No. 4:26-CV-05679, 2026 WL 2195373, at *3 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2026). 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. Respondents oppose the petition only on grounds that Petitioner has not exhausted her administrative remedies. But the Court has considered such argument before and has excused such failure. 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, has established a significant presence in the United States that requires due process protection, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before September 23, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner (who is identified by the initials S.Z. because she is a minor) from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. Given the circumstances, appropriate conditions of release do not include electronic ankle monitoring or any other form of restraint. It appears that Petitioner has a United States citizen sponsor who is prepared to ensure that Petitioner attends all immigration proceedings. Upon her release, Respondents shall return all documents and property confiscated from her. 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: 09/21/2026)

Sep 21, 2026

Order

#7

Sep 22, 2026

Judgment

#8

Sep 24, 2026

Status Report