District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-04711

#1

Sep 23, 2026

First APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11310201)Attorney Cesar E. Guerrero added to party Maximino De Leon Aguilar(pty:pet), filed by Maximino De Leon Aguilar. (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Show Cause, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 3 Appendix, # 4 Exhibit)(Guerrero, Cesar) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#2

Sep 23, 2026

First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Petitioner Maximino De Leon Aguilar. (Guerrero, Cesar) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#3

Sep 23, 2026

ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES: re: 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by attorney Cesar E. Guerrero. DO NOT REFILE THE DOCUMENT. Action to take - counsel must submit a change of contact request through PACER pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(c) and 3.5 of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil cases). (Text Only Entry) (jberr, ) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#4

Sep 23, 2026

Case assigned to Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico and drawn to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. OHara. Text Only Entry. (jberr, ) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#5

Sep 24, 2026

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of Local Civ. R. 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, (4) conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions, and (5) pursuant to Local Civ. R. 16.6 and at the discretion of the Magistrate Judge, convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 9/24/2026. Text Only Entry. (rkeec) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#6

Sep 24, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.The petitioner must serve the respondents with 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The petitioner need not serve a summons with a copy of the petition. The petitioner must promptly file proof of service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l)(1).Having reviewed the petition, I find that good cause appears, and it is therefore ORDERED that the respondents must SHOW CAUSE within two weeks after service of the petition why the application for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. The respondents must also respond to 2 Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by the same date.The petitioner may file a reply within two weeks of service of the response(s).SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 9/24/2026. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

Sep 24, 2026

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

Sep 24, 2026

Order to Show Cause

#7

Oct 12, 2026

NOTICE re 6 Order to Show Cause,,, Proof of Sevice by Petitioner Maximino De Leon Aguilar (Guerrero, Cesar) (Entered: 10/12/2026)

#8

Oct 13, 2026

NOTICE OF CASE ASSOCIATION 1:26-cv-05208 by Cesar E. Guerrero on behalf of Maximino De Leon Aguilar (Guerrero, Cesar) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

#9

Oct 20, 2026

First MOTION for Ruling by Petitioner Maximino De Leon Aguilar. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Motion to Grant Petition)(Guerrero, Cesar) (Entered: 10/20/2026)

#10

Oct 20, 2026

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9 Motion to Grant the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus upon Respondents' Failure to Show Cause.The petitioner contends that he served the respondents on 10/5/2026. Doc. 9 at 5. As proof of service, he filed a declaration stating that his counsel placed envelopes in the mail to each of the respondents, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado on 10/5/2026, and providing the certified mail receipts and tracking numbers. Doc. 7 . The U.S. Postal Service website indicates that the envelope addressed to the U.S. Attorney was delivered on 10/8/2026. U.S. Postal Serv., USPS Tracking, https://tools.usps.com/tracking/9589071052702043395898 (last visited Oct. 20, 2026); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2) (time for U.S. agency or officer sued in official capacity to respond to pleading runs from service on U.S. attorney). Most courts hold that service by certified mail pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) is effective upon receipt, not upon mailing. See Fuqua v. Turner, 996 F.3d 1140, 1155 (11th Cir. 2021); Gutierrez v. Principi, No. 01-1229 JP/RLP, 2002 WL 35649515, at *2 (D.N.M. Dec. 12, 2002) (citing Klein v. Williams, 144 F.R.D. 16, 19 (E.D.N.Y. 1992)); Rudder v. U.S. Govt, No. 5:22-CV-062-H-BQ, 2022 WL 18397636, at *5 n.4 (N.D. Tex. July 20, 2022) (collecting cases); cf. Chester v. Green, 120 F.3d 1091, 1091 (10th Cir. 1997) (certified mail receipts insufficient proof of service where there was no "receipt or acknowledgment showing actual delivery of the complaint"); but see Carter v. Kendall, No. 5:23-cv-00210-TES, 2024 WL 289332, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2024) (service not sufficient unless recipient actually receives the mail, but effective date of service is date of mailing). The respondents' show-cause response therefore is not due until 10/22/2026.The petitioner reports that the respondents removed him to Guatemala on 10/12/2026. Doc. 9 at 6, 8. The respondents' records reflect that the Board of Immigration Appeals received the petitioner's appeal of his removal order on 10/9/2026, and that appeal "is currently pending." See Dep't of Just. Exec. Office for Immigr. Rev., Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en (last visited Oct. 20, 2026) (allowing search by A-number). It thus appears that the respondents lacked legal authority to remove the petitioner because his order of removal is not final. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6(a) (order of removal "shall not be executed . . . while an appeal is pending"). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the respondents' show-cause response must address whether the petitioner was lawfully removed, and if not, why the Court should not order them to facilitate his return to the United States or some other appropriate remedy. See Rodriguez Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:26-cv-03504-DDD-CYC, 2026 WL 2575595 (D. Colo. Aug. 25, 2026).The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order by email to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado.SO ORDERED by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 10/20/2026. Text Only Entry. (agryan) (Entered: 10/20/2026)

#11

Oct 20, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Mailing by Clerk of Court re 10 Order via E-Mail to United States Attorney's Office. Text Only Entry. (agryan) (Entered: 10/20/2026)

Oct 20, 2026

Order on Motion for Ruling

#13

Oct 22, 2026

Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond

Oct 23, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond