Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SALVADOR RAYMUNDO MATEO
FRANCISCO,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:25-cv-1229 MIS-GJF
GEORGE DEDOS, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S IMMEDIATE RELEASE PENDING
RESOLUTION OF THE HABEAS PETITION UNDER THE COURT’S INHERENT
AUTHORITY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and Notice of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction (Dkt. No. 3) (“Preliminary Injunction Motion”), which were both filed by Petitioner
Salvador Raymundo Mateo Francisco (“Petitioner”) on December 10, 2025. Respondents Mary
De Anda-Ybarra, Todd Lyons, and Kristi Noem (the “Federal Respondents”) filed a response (Dkt.
No. 38) in opposition to the complaint and a response (Dkt. No. 37) in opposition to the Preliminary
Injunction Motion on December 30, 2025. Petitioner filed separate replies (Dkt. Nos. 42 and 43).
Respondent George Dedos is not represented, but the Federal Respondents agreed that, because
his defense was unlikely to differ from theirs, the Court could proceed with a decision. The
undersigned judge held an evidentiary hearing on the Petition and Preliminary Injunction Motion
on January 12, 2026, with Petitioner present. This Order solely resolves the question of whether
Petitioner should be immediately released on bail pending the full and final resolution of his habeas
petition.
Case 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF Document 48 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3

“Despite the lack of specific statutory authority, it is within the inherent power of a federal
district court to enlarge a state prisoner on bond, pending hearing and decision on a petition for
habeas relief.” Pfaff v. Wells, 648 F.2d 689, 693 (10th Cir. 1991) (2254 habeas case about
extradition to State where convictions had been affirmed on direct appeal). “However, a showing
of exceptional circumstances must be made for such relief, or a demonstration of a clear case on
the merits of the habeas petition.” Id. (emphasis added). The Tenth Circuit has applied the Pfaff
exceptional circumstances standard in a section 2241 habeas proceeding. See Stow v. Perrill, No.
94-1282, 1994 WL 377629, at *1.
The Court finds on the record that Petitioner has demonstrated a clear case on the merits of
the habeas petition to warrant relief. The record shows that Petitioner is not a danger to the
community or a risk of flight, and Respondents have not offered any evidence or argument to the
contrary. The Court finds under 28 U.S.C. § 636, Pfaff, and Stow that it has the inherent authority
to order immediate release from custody as interim relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s request for bail and immediate release pending resolution of his habeas
petition in this case is GRANTED.
2. The Court RELEASES Petitioner on his own recognizance and to the custody of his
aunt, Nicolasa Francisco Esteban.
3. Respondents must release Petitioner from detention at the Cibola County Correctional
Center no later than 8:00 a.m. MT on January 13, 2026.
4. The Court GRANTS Petitioner permission to travel back to his previous state of
residence, New York.
Case 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF Document 48 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3

5. No later than January 13, 2026, at 8:00 a.m. MT, Respondents must provide
Petitioner with all necessary documents sufficient to allow Petitioner to board and
travel by commercial domestic air (for example, an I203, I220A (Order of Release
on Recognizance), or any similar document necessary for travel).
SO ORDERED.
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF Document 48 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3