Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PEDRO MONTES CAMPOS,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-03255-MIS-JFR
DAVID J. VENTURELLA, Acting Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office
Director of the ICE El Paso Field Office of
Enforcement and Removal Operations;
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD
BLANCHE, Attorney General of the United
States; and WARDEN, Torrance County
Detention Facility,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 2241
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Pedro Montes Campos’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed September 30, 2026.
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who has resided in the United States for several years. Pet. at 14-
16. He apparently has no criminal history. Id. at 16, 48. Nevertheless, Petitioner was arrested by
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, apparently in Florida, and is currently
detained at the Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, New Mexico. See id. at 1, 14.
Petitioner argues that his detention without an individualized bond hearing violates his Fifth
Amendment right to due process. Id. at 6. He seeks an individualized bond hearing or immediate
release from detention. Id. at 21-22.
Case 1:26-cv-03255-MIS-JFR Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On October 1, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Answer and Enjoining Transfer
instructing Respondents to show cause why the Court should not grant Petitioner habeas relief.
ECF No. 4. The Court specifically ordered Respondents to “specify whether the Court has already
ruled on the legal issue(s) in this case and whether the holding in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180
F.4th 1226 (10th Cir. 2026) requires relief.” Id.
On October 9, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a “Response to [the] Petition.” ECF
No. 6. Therein, they state:
For purposes of this specific case, Respondents are not submitting a brief in
opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case.
Respondents recognize that the Court may then decide to grant the Petition and
award appropriate relief. Respondents submit that if the Court does grant the
Petition, the appropriate relief would be an Order directing that Respondents, within
seven days of this Court’s Order, provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a), or else release Petitioner.
Id. at 1 (citing Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1251 n.13 (10th Cir. 2026)).
“Where, as here, ‘a party files a response to a motion but does not address all arguments
which the motion raises, the party has effectively conceded the arguments which it does not
address.’” Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04014-CNS, 2026 WL 91470, at
*5 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026) (quoting Series 17-03-615 v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 3d
904, 935 (D. Kan. 2025)); see also C1.G on behalf of C.G. v. Siegfried, 38 F.4th 1270, 1282 (10th
Cir. 2022) (holding that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s facial challenge as
“abandoned” where plaintiff failed to include that challenge in his response to arguments raised in
defendant’s motion to dismiss). Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondents’ non-opposition to
the Petition constitutes a concession that Petitioner is being detained in violation of his Fifth
Amendment right to due process.
Case 1:26-cv-03255-MIS-JFR Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Indeed, in Santillan Quiroz, the Tenth Circuit held “that noncitizens who entered the United
States and were thereafter detained in the interior of the country are usually subject to § 1226(a)
(and thus eligible for bond), not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” 180 F.4th at 1237. That is precisely the situation
presented by this case.
Accordingly, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his
continued detention without a bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process,
and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief. The Court further finds that Respondents failed to
articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s continued detention and therefore orders his
immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 6. The Court further orders that Petitioner shall
not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the Government must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk. Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure
compliance with its Order.
IV. Conclusion
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Pedro Montes
Campos from custody/detention without restraints beyond those that existed before
his unlawful detention;
3. Respondents shall return all of Petitioner’s seized property to Petitioner;
4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Case 1:26-cv-03255-MIS-JFR Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-03255-MIS-JFR Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 4