Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-04232

#1

Jul 06, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-22250147), filed by James Rufino Cajero Lucas. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gulen, Muhammed) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

Jul 06, 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. (mgr)

Jul 06, 2026

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

Jul 07, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

Jul 07, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#2

Jul 08, 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: 07/08/2026)

#3

Jul 09, 2026

Text ORDER FOR SERVICE of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is ORDERED that notice of electronic filing of 1 Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney in San Antonio, Texas shall constitute service on the Federal Respondents and on all Respondents unless otherwise contested. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response to the Petition within seven (7) days of the date of service. The response must identify: (1) Petitioner's alleged country of birth, so that Petitioner can be located in the Online Detainee Locator System; (2) Petitioner's alleged date of entry and statutory basis for removability; (3) any previous immigration detention history, e.g., whether Petitioner has previously been subject to immigration detention and, if so, the approximate date of Petitioner's previous release into the interior; and (4) Petitioner's alleged immigration status, e.g., whether Petitioner has a pending claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture or is subject to a final removal order. 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. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rw) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#4

Jul 09, 2026

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

Jul 09, 2026

Order

#5

Jul 13, 2026

ORDER VACATING re 4 Order for Omnibus Advisory. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#6

Jul 16, 2026

RESPONSE RESPONSE TO PETITION by Todd Blanche, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Antonio Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wright, Samuel) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

#7

Jul 21, 2026

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Muhammed Gulen ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number ATXWDC-22340569) by on behalf of James Rufino Cajero Lucas. (Gulen, Muhammed) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

#8

Jul 22, 2026

RESPONSE PETITIONER'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to 6 Response, by James Rufino Cajero Lucas. (Gulen, Muhammed) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#9

Jul 30, 2026

Text ORDER GRANTING 7 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Having considered the mo-tion, the Court finds that the applicant, Ishan Anand, has complied with the requirements of Local Court Rule AT-1(f)(2). Accordingly, it GRANTS the motion and Applicant may appear pro hac vice on behalf of Petitioner. By appearing in this case, the applicant becomes subject to the rules of this Court. If Applicant has not already done so, he/she shall immediately tender the amount of $100.00, made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court. Additionally, pursuant to Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the applicant must register for electronic filing within ten days of this Order. If he/she has not already done so, Applicant shall promptly submit an application to be admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tex-as in the manner set forth in the Local Rules. Applicant shall not be permitted to appear pro hac vice in any other actions in this District without first being admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Finally, while providing representation in this case, the applicant shall abide by all Local Rules for the Western District of Texas and shall be bound by said rules. 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: 07/30/2026)

Jul 30, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#10

Oct 09, 2026

MOTION to Enforce Judgment by James Rufino Cajero Lucas. (Anand, Ishan) (Entered: 10/09/2026)

#11

Oct 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and DENYING 10 Motion to Enforce 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Through the motion, Petitioner essentially moves to expedite a ruling on the underlying petition because of ongoing harm caused by continued detention. Given the hundreds of similar habeas actions pending in this Court, Petitioner provides no basis to expedite. Such motions merely waste judicial time and resources, which could be used on other habeas cases. It is purely coincidental that the Court reached this case about a week after the Petitioner filed the motion. The Court denies the motion as unnecessary because it has expedited this matter to the extent possible through its standard practice with habeas petitions.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. Because Petitioner has no known criminal history, has established a significant presence in the United States that requires due process protection, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before October 17, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner James Rufino Cajero Lucas 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: 10/15/2026)

#12

Oct 15, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT --1. On or before October 17, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner James Rufino Cajero Lucas 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. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (mgr) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#13

Oct 15, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by James Rufino Cajero Lucas. (Anand, Ishan) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

Oct 15, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#14

Oct 19, 2026

STATUS REPORT Federal Respondents' Status Report by Todd Blanche, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Antonio Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella. (Miller, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/19/2026)