Sevilla Flores v. Baltazar

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher
Civil Action No. 26-cv-05089-GPG
LUIS ALEXANDER SEVILLA FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTAZAR,
Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Petition) (D. 1). Petitioner seeks release or, in the alternative, a bond hearing (id. at 5).
Because the Petitioner’s challenge is fundamentally legal in nature, the Court declines to hold a
hearing regarding Petitioner’s challenge. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.1
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to any person who demonstrates she is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The individual in custody bears the burden of proving that their detention is unlawful. Walker v.
Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 286 (1941).
1 The Court must construe the Petition liberally because Petitioner is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However,
the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. The Petition and included
Declaration appear to have been drafted with significant assistance from generative artificial intelligence (see D. 1 at
6) (“Analyze whether I should first request a bond hearing before the immigration court”).
Case No. 1:26-cv-05089-GPG Document 4 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
Based on the allegations in the Petition, this case is one of numerous garden-variety cases2
in this District and across the country seeking habeas relief for immigrants detained within the
United States but denied bond hearings under a new interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g.,
Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-02677-CNS, 2025 WL 2652880 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025);
Batz Barreno v. Baltasar, No. 025-cv-03017-GPG-TPO, 2025 WL 3190936 (D. Colo. Nov. 14,
2025). The Tenth Circuit has now conclusively resolved the interpretation of this statute in favor
of Petitioner. Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1240 (10th Cir. 2026).
The primary legal dispute underlying the Petition has been resolved for this Circuit and
expeditious relief is warranted to those in Petitioner’s circumstances. See Santillan Quiroz, 180
F.4th at 1251 n.13 (requiring “the district court must grant Santillan Quiroz’s petition forthwith”).
Respondent has taken to filing responses indicating that he will not be filing a brief in
opposition in these types of cases, so an Order to Show Cause would result in unnecessary delay.
However, should Respondent wish to raise an argument in opposition to the grant of relief, he
should do so expeditiously.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Petition (D. 1) is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent
Petitioner seeks a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden of proof of showing
Petitioner’s continued detention is proper and was proper at the time of Petitioner’s arrest. See
Batz Barreno, 2025 WL 3190936, *3 (holding that the government must prove risk of flight by a
preponderance of the evidence and must prove dangerousness to any other person or to the
community by clear and convincing evidence). Respondent shall provide Petitioner with a bond
2 Petitioner raises additional issues not addressed by the Court in this Order, including whether his rearrest and hearing
were administratively improper. Such issues may need to be addressed if Petitioner is not released on bond following
the hearing ordered herein (see D. 1 at 2, 5).
Case No. 1:26-cv-05089-GPG Document 4 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
hearing under § 1226(a) within SEVEN DAYS of receiving notice of this Order, and Respondent
has the responsibility to ensure that the government applies those burdens and provides a sufficient
record for review. Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1240. Additionally, Respondent SHALL notify
Petitioner and any counsel who has entered an appearance in this action of the date, time, and place
of the hearing no less than 24 hours prior to the beginning of the hearing. Respondent is
ENJOINED from denying bond to Petitioner on the basis that Petitioner is detained pursuant to
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondent is further ORDERED to file a status report within FIVE DAYS of
Petitioner’s bond hearing, stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if Petitioner’s
request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial and a copy of any related decision. Such
status update shall also include as an attachment any warrant justifying Petitioner’s detention at
the time he was detained.
DATED October 9, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Gordon P. Gallagher
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-05089-GPG Document 4 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3