Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-06298

#1

Sep 29, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 13119), filed by Jose Miguel Morillo Castillo. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt, # 2 Copy Of Envelope)(ksc) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#2

Sep 29, 2026

MOTION to Expedite by Jose Miguel Morillo Castillo. (ksc) (Main Document 2 replaced on 10/1/2026) (ksc). (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#3

Sep 29, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Jose Miguel Morillo Castillo. (ksc) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#4

Sep 29, 2026

Case Opening Letter mailed to Jose Miguel Morillo Castillo. (ksc) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Sep 29, 2026

THIS CASE HAS BEEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JASON K. PULLIAM. (ksc)

Sep 29, 2026

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

Oct 01, 2026

Remark (No Doc#)

Oct 01, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#5

Oct 02, 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.) (lc) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

Oct 02, 2026

Order

Oct 02, 2026

Text Order DENYING 3 Motion for Show Cause Order. This Court has received hundreds of habeas corpus petitions in recent months. This Petition will be assessed, and the Court will issue a ruling, in due course. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lc)

Oct 02, 2026

Text Order DENYING 2 Motion for Expedited Review or Motion to Expedite. This Court has received hundreds of habeas corpus petitions in recent months. This Petition will be assessed, and the Court will issue a ruling, in due course. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lc)

Oct 02, 2026

Order on Motion to Expedite

Oct 02, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause

#6

Oct 09, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Diaz, Rafael) (Entered: 10/09/2026)

#7

Oct 21, 2026

ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Jose Miguel Morillo Castillo. (cih) (Entered: 10/21/2026)

#8

Oct 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Petitioner claims that Respondents have violated procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment based on a significant presence in the United States and/or an improper revocation of release. 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, _ F.4th _, No. 26-50183, 2026 WL 2104747, at *1 (5th Cir. July 21, 2026) (per curiam). To the extent the Government contends 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, _F. Supp. 3d _, No. 4:26-CV-05679, 2026 WL 2195373, at *3 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2026). Absent further Fifth Circuit guidance, the stay in Sosnava Rodriguez does not preclude habeas relief on Petitioners due-process claim. 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 24, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Jose Miguel Morillo Castillo from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. If at the time of detention, Petitioner was complying with terms of release imposed through an unexpired parole or other active release, the imposed appropriate conditions of release shall be no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner's counsel, if any, 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. 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.) (lc) (Entered: 10/22/2026)

#9

Oct 22, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (cih) (Entered: 10/22/2026)

Oct 22, 2026

Order

#10

Oct 26, 2026

ADVISORY TO THE COURT by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Falcon, Barbara) (Entered: 10/26/2026)