Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ERICK ADRIAN PRADO RUIZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-02623-KG-KRS
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE PETITIONER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Erick Adrian Prado Ruiz’s pro se petition for writ
of habeas corpus (“Petition”), filed August 10, 2026. See Doc. 1. Petitioner challenges his continued
detention without a bond hearing and seeks his immediate release or an individualized bond hearing.
Doc. 1 at 17–18. Respondents do not contest the facts presented in the Petition. See Doc. 6 at 1
(“Respondents are not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and
circumstances of this case.”) The Court therefore concludes 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s
detention. See Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1237 (10th Cir. 2026) (holding 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)”). Petitioner’s
detention without a bond hearing constitutes a violation of his right to due process under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, 811 F.Supp.3d 1287,
1298 (D.N.M. 2025) (concluding petitioner detained pursuant to § 1226 was entitled to a bond hearing
and continued detention without such review was an ongoing violation of due process rights); Mieles-
Parraga v. Bondi, No. 2:26-cv-00646-KG-JHR, 2026 WL 776489, at *2 (D.N.M. March 19, 2026)
(ruling petitioner’s detention absent a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Procedural Due
Process Clause).
Case 2:26-cv-02623-KG-KRS Document 8 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
In habeas corpus proceedings, “a federal court ‘possesses power to grant any form of relief
necessary to satisfy the requirement of justice.’” Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir.
1992) (quoting Levy v. Dillon, 415 F.2d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 1969)). Immediate release is the
appropriate remedy for the due process violation in this case. See Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693
(2008) (“The typical remedy for [unlawful executive] detention is, of course, release.”); cf. Cruz-Reyes
v. Bondi, 818 F. Supp. 3d 875, 887 (S.D. Tex. 2026) (“Ordering a bond hearing under § 1226(a), after
[petitioner] has been taken into custody, cannot make up for the lack of an initial, individualized
determination process by ICE.”).
It is hereby ordered:
1. Respondents must immediately release (no later than forty-eight (48) hours from this
Order’s filing) Petitioner from custody.
2. Upon Petitioner’s release, Respondents must return all of his property, including any
identification documentation that was in his possession when he was detained.
Respondents shall provide a copy of this Order to Petitioner.
3. Respondents must file a status report within five (5) business days of this Order’s filing
to certify their compliance.
4. If Petitioner is re-detained prior to entry of a final order of removal, all applicable
regulations and procedures must be followed, including that Petitioner be provided a
bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been electronically
filed. To verify its authenticity, please refer to the Digital
File Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing)
accompanying this document. Electronically filed
documents can be found on the Court’s PACER public
access system.
Case 2:26-cv-02623-KG-KRS Document 8 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2