District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-02273
Hernandez v. Warden, GEO Aurora ICE Processing Center
Active
Case Information
Filed: May 22, 2026
Assigned to:
Charlotte N. Sweeney
Referred to:
—
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause:
28:2241in - Habeas Corpus: INS
Active
Last Activity:
July 27, 2026
Parties:
View All Parties →
Docket Entries
#1
May 22, 2026
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number 118147), filed by Pedro Francisco Hernandez. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Attachment, # 4 Attachment, # 5 Attachment, # 6 Attachment, # 7 Attachment, # 8 Attachment, # 9 Attachment, # 10 Attachment, # 11 Receipt, # 12 Envelope)(jberr, ) (Entered: 05/27/2026)
Main Document:
PETITION
#2
May 22, 2026
Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley for Initial Review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1 (b). Text Only Entry. (jberr, ) (Entered: 05/27/2026)
#4
Jun 08, 2026
AMENDED APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, filed by Pedro Francisco Hernandez.(echa, ) (Entered: 06/08/2026)
Main Document:
AMENDED
#5
Jun 23, 2026
Order Reassigning Case
Main Document:
Order Reassigning Case
#6
Jun 23, 2026
Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (echa, ) (Entered: 06/23/2026)
Main Document:
Magistrate
#7
Jul 01, 2026
CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Petitioner Pedro Francisco Hernandez. Only Pedro Francisco Hernandez consents (ggill, ) (Entered: 07/01/2026)
Main Document:
CONSENT
#9
Jul 06, 2026
CERTIFICATE of Service by Clerk of Court re 4 Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 8 Order to Show Cause, for service of process. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Slip Warden, GEO Aurora ICE Processing Center, # 2 Certified Slip USAG) (ggill, ) (Entered: 07/06/2026)
Main Document:
CERTIFICATE
#10
Jul 06, 2026
RETURN of Service upon the United States Attorney's Office. (ggill, ) (Entered: 07/06/2026)
Main Document:
RETURN
#11
Jul 13, 2026
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 8 by Respondents Pamela Bondi, Warden, GEO Aurora ICE Processing CenterAttorney Leslie Carol Schulze added to party Pamela Bondi(pty:res), Attorney Leslie Carol Schulze added to party Warden, GEO Aurora ICE Processing Center(pty:res). (Schulze, Leslie) (Entered: 07/13/2026)
Main Document:
RESPONSE
#15
Jul 13, 2026
RETURN of Service upon Respondent Warden, GEO Aurora ICE Processing Center. (ggill, ) (Entered: 07/14/2026)
Main Document:
RETURN
#12
Jul 14, 2026
MINUTE ORDER re: 6, 8 . The Order to Show Cause ordered Respondents to complete and file the Magistrate Consent Form by July 13, 2026. This deadline has now lapsed. The Court now ORDERS that Respondents shall file the Magistrate Consent Form by July 15, 2026. By Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara on 7/14/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (ggill, ) (Entered: 07/14/2026)
#13
Jul 14, 2026
CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Respondents Pamela Bondi, Warden, GEO Aurora ICE Processing Center All parties do not consent.. (Schulze, Leslie) (Entered: 07/14/2026)
Main Document:
CONSENT
#14
Jul 14, 2026
Order Reassigning Case
Main Document:
Order Reassigning Case
Jul 14, 2026
Minute Order
#16
Jul 16, 2026
MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. 1, and Respondents' response to it, ECF No. 11 . In their response, Respondents appear to analyze Petitioner's detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and 8 U.S.C. § 1226. See generally ECF No. 11 . A review of the petition and its supporting documents indicates that Petitioner seeks relief pursuant to INA § 241(a)(6) and Zadvydas v. Davis, and is subject to an order of removal. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 1. However, the record does not indicate whether any appeal of such an order of removal has been resolved or become final. Cf. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to file a supplement to their response on or before July 20, 2026, explaining whether the nature of Petitioner's allegations alters their position, and providing any update as to whether Petitioner's order of removal has become final during the pendency of this habeas action. By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 7/16/26. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (jdyne, ) (Entered: 07/16/2026)
Jul 16, 2026
Minute Order
#17
Jul 24, 2026
RETURN of Service upon U.S. Attorney General. (ggill, ) (Entered: 07/24/2026)
Main Document:
RETURN
#18
Jul 27, 2026
MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court are Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. 1, and Respondent's response to it, ECF No. 11. In the response, Respondent states that he is "not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition." ECF No. 11 at 1. The Court notes that Respondent has not filed a response to the Court's minute order, requesting any supplement regarding Petitioner's order of removal. Cf. ECF No. 16. In light of the representation in Respondent's response, Respondent's failure to respond to the Court's prior order, 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 he was subject to immediately prior to his 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 his 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. 11 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 7/27/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (cnsja, ) (Entered: 07/27/2026)
Jul 27, 2026
Minute Order