Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02427

#1

Apr 10, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 10971), filed by Jose Gregorio Ramirez Buitrago. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Envelope, # 3 Receipt)(r013) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

#2

Apr 10, 2026

Case Opening Letter sent to Jose Gregorio Ramirez Buitrago. (bc) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

Apr 10, 2026

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

Apr 10, 2026

THIS CASE HAS BEEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JASON K. PULLIAM (bc)

Apr 16, 2026

Remark (No Doc#)

Apr 16, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

Apr 24, 2026

ORDER FOR SERVICE--It is FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response to the Petition within seven (7) days of the date of service. The Court construes the Petition as raising a Fifth Amendment Due Process claim which Respondents should address. See, e.g., Longoria Mendoza v. Noem, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No 5:26-CV-0728-JKP, 2026 WL 809441, at *610 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026); Bonilla Chicas v. Warden, __ F. Supp.3d __, No. 26-CV-131, 2026 WL 539475, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2026); Marceau v. Noem, No. 26-CV-237-KC, 2026 WL 368953, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2026). Additionally, the response must identify:(1) Petitioners alleged country of birth;1(2) Petitioners alleged date of entry and statutory basis for removability;(3) Petitioners previous immigration detention history, if any;2and (4) Petitioners alleged immigration status. 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. (bt) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#4

May 04, 2026

Response

#5

May 04, 2026

Certificate of Service

#6

May 06, 2026

Pro Hac Vice Letter

#7

Jun 10, 2026

Response

#8

Jun 21, 2026

Notice of Attorney Appearance

#9

Jun 23, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Liberally construing Petitioner's pro se petition filed before counsel entered an appearance, 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. 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, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, No 5:26-CV-0728-JKP, 2026 WL 809441 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026) and numerous other cases decided by the undersigned. While there are differences between this case and Longoria Mendoza, none warrant a different result. 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. Because Petitioner has no known criminal history, had been complying with the terms of a prior release, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before June 25, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Jose Gregorio Ramirez Buitrago from custody to a public location, under conditions no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. 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: 06/23/2026)

#10

Jun 23, 2026

Judgment

Jun 23, 2026

Order

#11

Jun 26, 2026

Status Report