District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-04794

#1

Sep 28, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11319359)Attorney Preetkamal Singh added to party Amit Deswal(pty:pet), filed by Amit Deswal. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Singh, Preetkamal) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#2

Sep 28, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney and drawn to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter. Text Only Entry (eguth, ) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#3

Sep 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner Amit Deswal's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, in which Petitioner requests immediate release from immigration detention or, in the alternative, that the Court order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing, id. at 26. Having reviewed the petition, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to, no later than two calendar days from the entry of this Order, (1) serve Respondents with copies of the Petition and any accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail and mail pursuant to the service requirements outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i); and (2) promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter notices of appearance. Within five (5) calendar days of service, Respondents are ORDERED TO RESPOND to the Petition and are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted. See, e.g., Yassine v. Collins, No. 1:25-cv-00786-ADA-SH, 2025 WL 1954064, at *1 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2025) (explaining that while § 2243 refers to a three day deadline, this requirement is "subordinate to the district court's authority to set deadlines" itself, and granting respondents a fourteen day deadline to respond in order to "give [r]espondents adequate time to brief the issues" (quotations omitted)). Further, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, Respondents SHALL NOT REMOVE 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. See also Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate, et. al, Case No. 1:25-cv-881, D. Colo., ECF No. 11 at 45 (collecting cases); F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603 (1966); Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. New York Shipping Ass'n, 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992). By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 9/28/2026. Text Only Entry (cnsja, ) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

Sep 28, 2026

Minute Order

#4

Sep 30, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 3 Minute Order,,,,,,,, by Petitioner Amit Deswal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Singh, Preetkamal) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#5

Oct 14, 2026

RESPONSE to 3 Minute Order,,,,,,,, by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez, David VenturellaAttorney Erika A. Kelley added to party Juan Baltazar(pty:res), Attorney Erika A. Kelley added to party Todd Blanche(pty:res), Attorney Erika A. Kelley added to party Markwayne Mullin(pty:res), Attorney Erika A. Kelley added to party George Valdez(pty:res), Attorney Erika A. Kelley added to party David Venturella(pty:res). (Kelley, Erika) (Entered: 10/14/2026)

#6

Oct 15, 2026

ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. 1, and Respondent's response to it, ECF No. 5. 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 1-2. The Court notes that Respondents acknowledge that release is the appropriate remedy in this case. See ECF No. 5 at 1-2. In light of the representations 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioner's physical custody is legally justified. At any such bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of proof. See also, e.g., Singh v. Baltazar, 819 F. Supp. 3d 1247, 125051 (D. Colo. 2026). By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 10/15/2026. Text Only Entry (cnsja, ) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

Oct 15, 2026

Order

#7

Oct 19, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, George Valdez, David Venturella. (Kelley, Erika) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

#9

Oct 20, 2026

Judgment

Oct 20, 2026

Minute Order