Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01606

#1

Mar 11, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21545673), filed by EMETERIO ROMERO-ESCALANTE. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(Gomez, Juan) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

Mar 11, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (rqr)

Mar 11, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Bemporad (rqr)

Mar 11, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 11, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Mar 12, 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: 03/12/2026)

#3

Mar 19, 2026

ORDER FOR SERVICE--Federal Respondents are ORDERED to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus no later than March 25, 2026. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any possible or anticipated removal or transfer is IMMEDIATELY STAYED until further order from this Court. Respondents shall not transfer the above-named Petitioner outside of this judicial district during the pendency of this litigation and until further Order of this Court allowing removal or transfer. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (bt) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#4

Mar 19, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt as to Stephanie Rico, Civil Process Clerk of 3 Order,, (bt) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#5

Mar 25, 2026

RESPONSE to Petition to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Pamela Jo Bondi, TODD LYONS, KRISTI NOEM, Sylvester Ortega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Miller, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#6

Mar 25, 2026

RESPONSE to 5 Response by EMETERIO ROMERO-ESCALANTE. (Gomez, Juan) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#7

Mar 25, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt of 4 Certified Mailing to Stephanie Rico, Civil Process Clerk, U.S. Attorney's Office. (slt) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#8

Jul 09, 2026

ORDER FOR OMNIBUS ADVISORY. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#9

Jul 13, 2026

ORDER VACATING re 8 Order for Omnibus Advisory. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#10

Oct 20, 2026

MOTION to Expedite by EMETERIO ROMERO-ESCALANTE. (Gomez, Juan) (Entered: 10/20/2026)

#11

Oct 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and DENYING 10 Motion to Expedite. Through the motion, Petitioner moves to expedite on grounds that he has a young child that he needs to provide for. While in certain circumstances, that may provide a reason to expedite a habeas action over and above the normal process, the motion in this instance lacks sufficient detail. Nevertheless, this is an older habeas cases that warrants further review regardless of a motion to expedite.Petitioner claims that Respondents have violated procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment based on a significant presence in the United States. Respondents have submitted a response in opposition. 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. 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. Although an attached Form I-213 shows that Petitioner was convicted of driving while intoxicated on June 26, 2013, and served three months and twenty days, Respondents do not rely on the conviction to support Petitioner's detention or oppose the habeas petition. They merely mention it before noting that immigration authorities apprehended Petitioner more than twelve years later, on January 13, 2026. Because Petitioner has no other known criminal history, has established a significant presence in the United States that requires due process protection, and there is no other indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before October 24, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Emeterio Romero-Escalante from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. 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: 10/22/2026)

#12

Oct 22, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Emeterio Romero-Escalante-- 1. On or before October 24, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Emeterio Romero-Escalante from custody to a public location under appropriate conditions of release. 2. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioners counsel of the exact location and exact time of release as soon as practicable and no less than two hours before release. 3. Any possible or anticipated removal or transfer of Petitioner under this present detention is PROHIBITED. 4. 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. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (bt) (Entered: 10/23/2026)

Oct 22, 2026

Order on Motion to Expedite

#13

Oct 26, 2026

STATUS REPORT Respondents' Status Report by Pamela Jo Bondi, TODD LYONS, KRISTI NOEM, Sylvester Ortega. (Falcon, Barbara) (Entered: 10/26/2026)