Riveron v. Figueroa et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALEXIS ROSENDO ORTIZ-RIVERON,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED FIGUEROA, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-1562-D
ORDER
Petitioner Alexis Rosendo Ortiz-Riveron filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner is a citizen of Cuba who entered the
United States on or about July 22, 2022, and was released from U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody by an Order of Release on Recognizance. [Doc. No.
13, at 2]. Petitioner was re-detained by ICE on or about June 5, 2026, and his removal
proceedings 	are 	ongoing. 	Id. 	Petitioner 	is 	currently 	detained 	at 	the 	Diamondback
Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma. [Doc. No. 1, at 1-2].
Petitioner is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provision contained in 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Petitioner alleges that he has not received a bond hearing since his
re-detention by ICE. Petitioner seeks his release from custody. [Doc. No. 1].
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for initial
proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc. No. 3]. On
September 29, 2026, Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13],
recommending that the Court grant in part the Petition and order Respondents to provide
Case 5:26-cv-01562-D Document 15 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents filed a timely
Objection to Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 14]. Thus, the Court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In their objection, Respondents note that they respectfully disagree with the Tenth
Circuit’s decision in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226 (10th Cir. 2026), but
concede that Santillan Quiroz controls this Court’s decision in this habeas action.
Accordingly, 	Respondents’ 	objection 	is 	overruled 	and 	§ 	1226(a) 	controls
Petitioner’s detention. Petitioner is therefore entitled to a bond hearing. 	See Santillan
Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1251 n.13 (directing district court to order the government to provide
the petitioner a bond hearing within 7 days “[b]ecause [the petitioner] can properly be
subject to detention under § 1226(a).”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
13] is ADOPTED on de novo review, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED in part. IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a prompt bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), within seven days of the date of this Order, or release Petitioner.1 A
separate judgment shall be entered.
1 	Given this determination, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s remaining
claims at this time.
Case 5:26-cv-01562-D Document 15 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2026.
UNITED STAT ES DISTRICT m DGE
Case 5:26-cv-01562-D Document 15 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3