District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-03893

#1

Aug 24, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11234352)Attorney Laxman Adhikari added to party SAHIL NONE(pty:pet), filed by SAHIL NONE. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit and Declaration)(Adhikari, Laxman) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#2

Aug 24, 2026

Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung. Text Only Entry (eguth, ) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#3

Aug 24, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (eguth, ) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#4

Aug 28, 2026

ORDER to Show Cause: Upon review of the Petition, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before September 1, 2026, the Petitioner shall serve the respondents with the Petition, its exhibits, and this Order to Show Cause. Within 48 hours of serving the respondents, the Petitioner shall file proof of service on the docket, and counsel for the respondents shall promptly enter their notices of appearance. It is further ORDERED that, on or before September 9, 2026, the respondents shall SHOW CAUSE why the Petition shall not be granted. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(c)(4), the deadline to file the Consent/Non-Consent to United States Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form, ECF No. 4, is September 9, 2026. Pursuant to the All Writs Act, and in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, it is further ORDERED that the respondents SHALL NOT REMOVE the Petitioner from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung on 08/28/2026. (agryan) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#5

Sep 01, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 4 Order to Show Cause,,,, by Petitioner Sahil None. (Adhikari, Laxman) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#6

Sep 09, 2026

RESPONSE to 4 Order to Show Cause,,,, by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David J. VenturellaAttorney 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 Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Winnie Wu added to party David J. Venturella(pty:res). (Wu, Winnie) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#7

Sep 09, 2026

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

#8

Sep 10, 2026

CASE REASSIGNED Pursuant to 7 Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. All parties do not consent, therefore, this case is randomly reassigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, and drawn to Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung for all future proceedings. All future pleadings should be designated as 26-cv-03893-CNS. (Text Only Entry) (agryan) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#9

Sep 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. 1, and Respondents' response to it, ECF No. 6 . In the response, Respondents state that they are "not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case." Id. at 1. In light of the representation in Respondents' response, 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 Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, et. al, 180 F.4th 1226, 1246 (10th Cir. 2026), the Court GRANTS Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. 1 . It is ORDERED that Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody immediately, but no later than within 48 hours of this Order, and may not impose any additional conditions of release or supervision beyond those Petitioner was subject to immediately prior to his recent detention. Respondents SHALL FILE a status report within THREE DAYS of this Order to certify compliance. Respondents are further ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless Respondents demonstrate, 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 Respondents contend that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy, see ECF No. 8 at 2, this argument fail to persuade. Compare ECF No. 8 at 2, with Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1251 n.13. See also, e.g., Singh v. Baltazar, 819 F. Supp. 3d 1247, 125051 (D. Colo. 2026). By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 9/10/2026. Text Only Entry (cnsja, ) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

Sep 10, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Sep 14, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Wu, Winnie) (Entered: 09/14/2026)