Guzman Martinez v. Noem et al.

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EVARISTA BLANCA GUZMAN
MARTINEZ, A # 087-734-346
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-6363
WARDEN RANDALL TATE, Montgomery
Processing Center, et al.
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Evarista Blanca Guzman Martinez is detained by officials with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Through counsel, the petitioner filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1). The petitioner states
that she is a citizen of Mexico; that she entered the United States in 2004, over 21 years
ago; that she was apprehended by immigration authorities and detained on November 12,
2025, and was placed in removal proceedings; that on December 30, 2025, and immigration
judge denied her request for bond on the grounds that she is subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b); and that she has no previous immigration history or encounters.
She argues that her detention is unlawful because 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) does not authorize
her detention. She seeks release from custody or a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),
among other relief.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06363 Document 11 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
On January 13, 2026, the Court entered an order for an expedited answer (Dkt. 4).
The Court also entered an order to show cause (Dkt. 5) why the petitioner should not be
immediately released from custody or, in the alternative, be granted a bond hearing before
an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days.
On January 20, 2026, the federal respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (Dkt. 7). The respondents oppose habeas
relief and argue that the petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b). They do not contest the facts recited by the petitioner and assert no other basis
for the petitioner’s detention.1 The petitioner’s response (Dkt. 10) argues that § 1225(b)
does not justify her detention and seeks release.
Having considered the parties’ briefing and all matters of record, the Court
determines that the petitioner, who had been present in the United States for over 21 years
when detained, is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See
Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025); Behnam
Goorakani v. Lyons, No. 25-CV-9456, 2025 WL 3632896 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025); Cruz
1 Because the respondents do not argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies, the Court does not
consider § 1226(a) as a basis for detention See Martinez v. Hyde, 792 F. Supp. 3d 211, 223 n.23
(D. Mass. 2025) (“Since there is no indication or present assertion that Petitioner is subject to
detention under section 1226, the Court sees no reason to consider that basis”); Luna v. Warden,
No. EP-25-CV-00565-DCG, 2025 WL 3787494, at *11 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2025) (“The Court
will not consider whether Petitioner’s detention is lawful under authorities for which Respondents
themselves have not advocated”); Pineda v. Noem, No. SA-25-CA-01518-XR, 2025 WL 3471418,
at *6 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2025). In any event, § 1226(a) has specific requirements, including
issuance of a warrant. See Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at
*3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-00437-SDN, 2025 WL 2688541,
at *11 (D. Me. Sept. 21, 2025). The respondents have not asserted that the requirements of §
1226(a) were satisfied in this case.
Case 4:25-cv-06363 Document 11 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
Gutierrez v. Thompson, No. 4:25-4695, 2025 WL 3187521 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2025);
Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara, No. 5:25-CV-112, 2025 WL 2950097 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 8,
2025); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. H-25-3726, 2025 WL 2886346, at *2 (S.D. Tex.
Oct. 7, 2025).2
“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.” Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008). The remedy for unlawful detention “is, of course, release.” Id.;
see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (based on statutory language of 28
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) and the common-law history of the writ, “the essence of habeas corpus
is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional
function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody”); see also Ahmed 2026 WL
25627, at *3 (collecting recent cases). After reviewing the authorities and all matters of
record, the Court determines that release is the appropriate habeas relief for the unlawful
detention in this case.
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
2 The exhaustion doctrine does not bar judicial review. Lopez-Arevelo v. Ripa, 801 F. Supp.
3d 668, 680-81 (W.D. Tex. 2025) (exhaustion is not required because requiring the petitioner to
wait indefinitely for an agency appeal would exacerbate his alleged constitutional injury); Lopez
Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 496 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (exhaustion is not statutorily
required and was excused given that available remedies provided no genuine opportunity for
adequate relief and the petitioner raised a substantial constitutional question); Buenrostro-
Mendez, 2025 WL 2886346, at * 3 (exhaustion was not statutorily required under the
circumstances and the issue of statutory interpretation belongs in the province of the courts).
Case 4:25-cv-06363 Document 11 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
1. The petitioner’s petition for habeas relief (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED. The
respondents are ORDERED to release the petitioner from custody within 48
hours of this order to a public location.
2. The respondents are further ORDERED to inform the petitioner and petitioner’s
counsel of the time and location of release at least two hours before the release.
3. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report updating the Court
within five days of this order.
4. The Court previously ordered that the respondents notify the Court and
petitioner’s counsel of any anticipated or planned transfer of the petitioner
outside of the Southern District of Texas at least five (5) days before any such
transfer. This order REMAINS IN PLACE.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on , 2026.
__________________________________
GEORGE C. HANKS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 30
Case 4:25-cv-06363 Document 11 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4