District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-02313

#1

May 26, 2026

First APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11036867)Attorney Chimnaz Shahbazzade added to party HUSEYIN BOZASLAN(pty:pla), filed by HUSEYIN BOZASLAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Shahbazzade, Chimnaz) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#2

May 26, 2026

ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES: re: 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by attorney Chimnaz Shahbazzade. 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: 05/27/2026)

#3

May 26, 2026

Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Text Only Entry. (jberr, ) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#4

May 27, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (jberr, ) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#5

May 28, 2026

CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Petitioner Huseyin Bozaslan All parties consent.. (Shahbazzade, Chimnaz) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#6

May 28, 2026

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on May 28, 2026. Upon review of Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1, the "Petition"), which requests, inter alia, that the Court assume jurisdiction, order Petitioner's immediate release, or in the alternative, order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a constitutionally adequate bond hearing or custody determination, it is ORDERED that Petitioner shall serve Respondents with a copy of the Petition and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail and overnight mail, on or before May 29, 2026. Petitioner shall promptly file proof of such service on the docket, and counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter their notices of appearance. Within seven days of service, Respondents shall RESPOND to the Petition and SHOW CAUSE why the Petition shall not be granted. In doing so, Respondents are asked to briefly address: 1.Whether Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or § 1226(c), and whether he has received (or been afforded the opportunity for) an individualized bond hearing or custody determination; 2.Whether the issues presented here are materially different from the issues this Court has resolved in its prior rulings in Merchan-Pacheo v. Noem, No. 25-cv-3860-SBP, 2026 WL 88526 (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2026) and/or Arenas v. Noem, No. 26-cv-24-SBP, 2026 WL 317562 (D. Colo. Feb. 5, 2026), or from the Tenth Circuit's decision in Hoang v. Comfort, 282 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2002); 3.Whether Petitioner has failed to administratively exhaust any claims asserted in the Petition; and4.Whether this Court has jurisdiction and venue over the Petition given that Petitioner is currently detained in Oklahoma. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a completed Magistrate Judge consent form (ECF No. 4) -- signed by all parties -- no less than seven days from the date of this Order. The consent form currently on the docket (ECF No. 5) reflects only Petitioner's consent. All parties must consent before the Court may exercise full jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Respondents are hereby ENJOINED from transferring Petitioner outside the jurisdiction of the District of Colorado pending resolution of the Petition. Text Only Entry (sbplc9, ) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#7

May 28, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service by Petitioner Huseyin Bozaslan. (Shahbazzade, Chimnaz) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

May 28, 2026

Order

#8

Sep 04, 2026

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 09/04/2026. This matter is before the court sua sponte. Upon further review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1 ), the court finds that "[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined." United States v. Tamayo, 162 F. Appx 813, 815 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation modified). "[H]abeas jurisdiction attaches on the initial filing of the § 2241 petition-that is, a prisoner must file his § 2241 motion in the district where he is confined at the time of the filing." Id. (citing Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Commission, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985)). Here, the petition was incarcerated at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in Arizona, but he filed his petition in this District. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over the petition.Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED without prejudice to refiling in the District of Arizona, or any other jurisdiction in which Petitioner may be located at the time of filing his renewed petition. The Clerk's Office is directed to close this case. Text Only Entry (sjeff) (Entered: 09/05/2026)

Sep 05, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case