District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-03633

#1

Aug 10, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11200428)Attorney Andrew Walker added to party Jose Santos Orozco Salinas(pty:pet), filed by Jose Santos Orozco Salinas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, Part one - Petitioners Exhibit List in Support of Bond, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, Part two - Petitioners Exhibit List in Support of Bond, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Bond Order of the Immigration Judge)(Walker, Andrew) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

#2

Aug 10, 2026

Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Text Only Entry. (alxu, ) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#3

Aug 11, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (alxu, ) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#4

Sep 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 09/04/2026. This matter is before the court on Petitioner Jose Santos Orozco Salinas' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 ). Petitioner shall, by overnight mail and email, serve Respondents with a copy of the Petition and this Order on or before September 10, 2026. Petitioner shall file proof of service. Within seven days of service, respondents shall show cause why the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed."). In doing so, Respondents are asked to address whether the issues presented here are materially different from the issues the Tenth Circuit has resolved in its prior ruling in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th (10th Cir. 2026). Petitioner may file a reply within seven days of Respondents filing their response. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a completed Magistrate Judge consent form (ECF No. 3 ) no less than seven days from the date of this Order. Text Only Entry (sjeff) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

Sep 04, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Sep 09, 2026

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Winnie Wu on behalf of Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, George ValdezAttorney Winnie Wu added to party Juan Baltazar(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party Todd M. Lyons(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party George Valdez(pty:res) (Wu, Winnie) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#6

Sep 09, 2026

CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez All parties do not consent.. (Wu, Winnie) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#7

Sep 09, 2026

CASE REASSIGNED Pursuant to 6 Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. Case randomly reassigned to Judge S. Kato Crews and drawn to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. All parties do not consent. All future pleadings should be designated as 26-cv-03633-SKC. (Text Only Entry) (ccuen, ) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#8

Sep 10, 2026

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jose Santos Orozco Salinas. Juan Baltazar served on 9/9/2026, answer due 9/30/2026; Todd Blanche served on 9/9/2026, answer due 9/30/2026; Todd M. Lyons served on 9/9/2026, answer due 9/30/2026; Markwayne Mullin served on 9/9/2026, answer due 9/30/2026; George Valdez served on 9/9/2026, answer due 9/30/2026. (Walker, Andrew) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#9

Sep 11, 2026

ANSWER to Complaint by Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez.(Wu, Winnie) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#10

Sep 15, 2026

REPLY to 9 Answer to Complaint by Petitioner Jose Santos Orozco Salinas. (Walker, Andrew) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#11

Sep 21, 2026

ORDER: Before the Court is Jose Santos Orozco Salinas' 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2002. Dkt. 1, p.9. In mid-June 2026, Petitioner was arrested for harassment, and upon his release from jail, he was detained by ICE and transferred to the Denver Contract Detention Facility. Id. at p.10. On July 24, 2026, Petitioner was given a bond hearing. Id. at p.11. The immigration judge denied bond because Petitioner "has not established he is not a danger." Dkt. 1-3, p.1. Petitioner argues Respondents violated his due process rights by improperly placing the burden on him at the bond hearing. Dkt. 1, p.12. In their Response, Respondents assert they "are not submitting a brief in opposition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case." Dkt. 9, p.1.Where, as here, "a party files a response to a motion but does not address all arguments which the motion raises, the party has effectively conceded the arguments which it does not address." Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-04014-CNS, 2026 WL 91470, at *5 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026) (quoting Series 17-03-615 v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 3d 904, 935 (D. Kan. 2025)); see also C1.G ex rel C.G. v. Siegfried, 38 F.4th 1270, 1282 (10th Cir. 2022). In addition, other courts in this District who have considered whether the burden of proof should be placed on Respondents at the bond hearing use the test set out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Posada v. Mullin, No. 26-cv-03765-NYW, 2026 WL 2654041, at *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 9, 2026); see also Alfaro Herrera, 2026 WL 91470, at *11. Under the Mathews factors, the Court considers: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action, (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interests through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards, and (3) the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.In Guevara Garcia v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-01012-SKC, 2026 WL 835766 (D. Colo. Mar. 26, 2026), this Court analyzed the Mathews factors and concluded that the Government must bear the burden of proof at the bond hearing. The Court held "[t]he government must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence, and it must prove dangerousness to any other person or to the community by clear and convincing evidence." Id. at *4. The Court incorporates its reasoning regarding the burden of proof and agrees with other courts in this district that placing the burden of proof on the petitioner at the bond hearing is a violation of their due process rights.Accordingly, Mr. Orozco Salinas' 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that, on or before September 28, 2026, Respondents shall provide Petitioner a bond hearing under § 1226(a). At the bond hearing, Respondents must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence and dangerousness to any other person or the community by clear and convincing evidence. At the bond hearing, the immigration judge shall specify their findings on flight risk and dangerousness. If the Petitioner is not provided a bond hearing by that date, Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody. On or before October 5, 2026, Respondents shall file a status report addressing the results of the bond hearing. SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 9/21/2026. Text Only Entry (skclc4) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

Sep 21, 2026

Order