Watts Lara v. Warden et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DENNIS DAVID WATTS LARA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-1207-R
)
WARDEN, DIAMONDBACK 	)
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Petitioner,
Mr. Dennis David Watts Lara, seeks release from detention by this Court through a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1]. The Court referred Mr. Watts Lara’s
Petition to United States Magistrate Shon T. Erwin, who recommended that the Court grant
it in part and order a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1226(a). [Doc. No. 13].
Respondents objected [Doc. No. 14], so the Court will review de novo those portions of
the Report to which they specifically object.1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED R. CIV. P.
72(b)(3).
Respondents focus their objection on Judge Erwin’s liberal construction of Mr.
Watts Lara’s Petition, Reply, and other pleadings. See Doc. No. 14. And it’s true that Judge
Erwin recommended a bond hearing based on a statutory argument that Mr. Watts Lara
1 Mr. Watts Lara did not object.
Case 5:26-cv-01207-R Document 15 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 3

didn’t explicitly make. Doc. No. 14 at 10; see Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226
(10th Cir. 2026). But all the pieces were there. Mr. Watts Lara alleged that he was
previously paroled into the country, later detained by ICE, and now has pending
proceedings before the BIA. Doc. No. 13 at 2, 6. While the Court is not Mr. Watts Lara’s
attorney, it’s hardly herculean to apply these facts to an extraordinarily common question
of law in this District. Luo v. Wang, 71 F.4th 1289, 1291 n.1 (10th Cir. 2023); see Santillan
Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1233 (characterizing Respondents’ position as having “resulted in a
large increase in the number of immigration detainees and a flood of habeas petitions
challenging those detentions.”). So the Court overrules Respondents’ objection.
In any event, Judge Erwin also concluded—based on explicit arguments in the
Petition—that Mr. Watts Lara’s continued detention without a bond hearing violates the
Due Process Clause. U.S. CONST. art. V; Doc. No. 13 at 10. Respondents didn’t object to
this portion of the R&R. Doc. No. 14 at 5. So the Court need not address this unobjected-
to recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.”); see United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). Aurelio
v. Smith, No. 1:25-CV-01984-CNS-KAS, 2026 WL 777188, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2026)
(“Plaintiff’s objections . . . did not address this portion of the magistrate judge’s
Recommendation, and the Court sees no reason to disturb it.”); Still v. Herndon, 496 F.
App’x 860, 864 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming adoption of R&R where plaintiff “did not
provide a specific objection to the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
concerning [plaintiff’s] second claim for relief, and consequently adopted the
Case 5:26-cv-01207-R Document 15 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 3

Recommendation . . . with relation to that claim”) (citation modified) (unpublished). The
Court ADOPTS the R&R.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in PART Mr. Watts Lara’s Petition, Doc. No. 1,
and ORDERS Respondents to provide him with a lawful bond hearing pursuant to
§ 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this order or otherwise release him if he has not
received such a hearing within that period. Respondents shall certify their compliance with
this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-01207-R Document 15 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 3