District of Arizona • 2:26-cv-10117

#1

Nov 02, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241). Filing fee received: $ 5.00, receipt number 200025120 filed by Mauricio Leyva Cosio. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(MAR) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#2

Nov 02, 2026

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (Attachments: # 1 Instructions) (MAR) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#3

Nov 04, 2026

NOTICE OF GENERAL ORDER 26-09 AND STANDARD SCHEDULE - See documents for complete details. (Attachments: # 1 GO 26-09, # 2 AUSA Letter) (MAR) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#4

Nov 04, 2026

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF IMMIGRATION HABEAS PETITION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241), 3 Notice of General Order 26-09 and Standard Schedule upon Melissa Kroeger, Lon Leavitt, Dina Anagnopoulos, and Mary Finlon on this date. (MAR) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#5

Nov 04, 2026

ORDER - On July 14, 2026, this court granted in part petitioner's first habeas petition, filed in No. 2:26-cv-04656-KML. Approximately two weeks ago, in that same case, the court denied petitioner's motion to enforce judgment because he had received a bond hearing as the court ordered. See Cosio v. Mullin, No. 2:26-cv-04656-KML, Doc. 11 (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2026). Petitioner has now filed a new petition for habeas corpus that, apart from one conditions-of-confinement claim not cognizable in a habeas proceeding, appears to raise no facts or arguments that could not have been raised previously. (Doc. 1 .) "Although the common law did not apply traditional res judicata principles to habeas petitions, courts developed different equitable doctrines to address abuses of the writ." Bowe v. United States, 607 U.S. 13, 41 n.10 (2026). In general, "[t]he abuse of the writ doctrine forbids the reconsideration of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior habeas petition." Eldridge v. Howard, 70 F.4th 543, 551 (9th Cir. 2023) (simplified). When the doctrine is raised, a second or successive habeas petition "must be dismissed unless the petitioner can show (1) cause for bringing a successive petition and that prejudice would result or (2) that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from failure to entertain the claim." Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011). Respondents must address abuse of the writ in their response. Petitioner may reply consistent with the deadline imposed by D. Ariz. General Order 26-09. The Clerk of Court must immediately transmit by email a copy of this Order to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the attention of Melissa Kroeger at melissa.kroeger@usdoj.gov, Lon Leavitt at lon.leavitt@usdoj.gov, Dina Anagnopoulos at Dina.Anagnopoulos@usdoj.gov, and Mary Finlon at Mary.Finlon@usdoj.gov. Ordered by Judge Krissa M Lanham on 11/4/2026. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (NSH) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

Nov 04, 2026

Order

Nov 04, 2026

Notice of Service - Immigration Habeas