Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Pedro A.D.L.O.O.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General;
Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;1 Todd
M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Warden, Sherriff of
Camp East Montana Detention Center, El
Paso, Texas,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1959 (DWF/DJF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Pedro A.D.L.O.O.’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a response
asserting authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and seeking dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction or transfer to the Western District of Texas. (Doc. No. 5.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion to dismiss or transfer, grants the
Petition, and orders Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing.
1 	Markwayne Mullin is automatically substituted in as the current Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security. The Clerk of Court is directed to replace Kristi Noem
with Markwayne Mullin on the docket.
CASE 0:26-cv-01959-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 8

2
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico and resident of Saint Paul, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 8, 14.) Petitioner has lived in the United States since October 2003. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Petitioner does not have a final order of removal or a criminal history. (Id. ¶ 15.) He is
the sole economic provider for his two young daughters. (Id. ¶ 16.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested Petitioner in
Minnesota on January 5, 2026. (Id. ¶ 17.) Petitioner was on his way to work when ICE
agents stopped him on the highway. (Id.) The agents then arrested him without a
warrant. (See id. ¶¶ 31, 54.) Petitioner was briefly detained in Minnesota. (See Doc.
No. 5 at 5.) He was then brought to the ERO El Paso Camp East Montana in Texas.
(Doc. No. 1 ¶ 21.) Currently, the ICE detainee locator yields no results when searching
for Petitioner. See Online Detainee Locator System, U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t,
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited Apr. 7, 2026).
Petitioner filed the Petition on March 19, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 16.) Petitioner
asserts that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 32-48.) Petitioner requests
immediate release from detention or, in the alternative, a bond hearing. (Id. at 16.) On
March 20, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before
March 23, 2026 at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner
from this District pending further order, or if Petitioner was already moved from
CASE 0:26-cv-01959-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Minnesota, that he be immediately returned to the state. (Doc. No. 4.) Respondents
timely filed the response. (Doc. No. 5.)
DISCUSSION
I. 	Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
As a threshold matter, Respondents challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over this
case. (Doc. No. 5.) They ask the Court to either dismiss the Petition or transfer the
matter to the Western District of Texas. (Id. at 1, 6.) Generally, jurisdiction over a
habeas petition lies only in the district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 443 (2004). However, when “a prisoner is held in an undisclosed location by an
unknown custodian, it is impossible to apply the immediate custodian and district of
confinement rules.” Id. at 450 n.18. Petitioner acknowledges that he was detained in
Texas at the time the Petition was filed. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 8.) However, his current location
is unknown to the Court. Because Petitioner’s current location is unknown, the Court has
jurisdiction.
Further, Respondents submitted alternative arguments on the basis of Petitioner’s
detention. There is no reason to delay determination of the Petition. See Edita M.S.C. v.
Noem, No. 26-cv-650, 2026 WL 252545, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2026) (denying a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because requiring the petitioner to refile her
petition would have been a waste of judicial resources). The motion to dismiss or
transfer is denied.
CASE 0:26-cv-01959-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 8

4
II. 	Merits of the Petition
Turning to the merits, a district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is
being detained in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). That authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to
immigration-related detention. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng
Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896, 900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the
petitioner to prove illegal detention by a preponderance of the evidence. See
Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) and point to an Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248, 2026
WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026). (Doc. No. 5 at 5-6; Doc. No. 6.) In Avila, the
Eighth Circuit interpreted § 1225(b)(2)(A) to require detention of any noncitizen present
in the United States who has not been admitted, regardless of whether they are arriving at
the border or within the interior, if an examining officer determines that the noncitizen
seeking admission “is not clearly . . . entitled to be admitted.” See Avila, 2026 WL
819258, at *3-4. As a result of that ruling, Petitioner’s statutory arguments for release
under the INA are moot.
However, Petitioner also challenges the constitutionality of his detention under the
Due Process Clause. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 32-39.) The Avila opinion did not address the issue
of due process. See 2026 WL 819258, at *8 & n.8 (Erickson, J., dissenting).
Respondents were specifically directed to address each count of the Petition in their
response. (Doc. No. 4 ¶ 2(a).) Respondents addressed only the INA argument. (See
CASE 0:26-cv-01959-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Doc. Nos. 5, 6.) They have therefore waived any argument on the due process issue.
See, e.g., Pedro Eduardo R.P. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-1323, 2026 WL 473140, at *3
(D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2026) (discussing waiver of constitutional claims), report and
recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 478607 (D. Minn. Feb. 19, 2026). Nonetheless,
Petitioner would be entitled to relief under a due process analysis, as explained below.
No person within the United States—including noncitizens who entered
unlawfully—shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
U.S. Const. amend. V; see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. Civil detention violates the Due
Process Clause unless there is a “special justification” that “outweighs the individual’s
constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S.
at 690 (citation modified). To determine whether a civil detention violates a detainee’s
due process rights, courts apply the three Mathews factors. 2 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319, 335 (1976); see, e.g., Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1148. The three factors
are: (1) the private interest affected by the official action; (2) the risk of erroneous
deprivation of such interest, and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural
safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the burden of those additional or
substitute safeguards. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
2 	Use of the Mathews factors is appropriate here despite the Eighth Circuit’s
decision to bypass this test in Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928 (8th Cir. 2024). Banyee
analyzed the mandatory detention of a noncitizen pursuant to § 1226(c). See id. at 930.
Section 1226(c) requires the detention of noncitizens who are inadmissible or deportable
because they have committed a particular crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Petitioner has
no criminal history. Cf. Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1154 (D. Minn.
2025) (finding Banyee inapposite because petitioner had no criminal history).
CASE 0:26-cv-01959-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 5 of 8

6
These factors favor Petitioner. First, freedom from detention is a central due
process protection. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (“Freedom from imprisonment—from
government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of
the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.”); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507,
529 (2004) (“[T]he most elemental of liberty interests [is] the interest in being free from
physical detention by one’s own government.”). Second, without an individual
assessment, the risk of erroneous deprivation is high. Cf. Yang v. Maydak, No. 26-cv-
116, 2026 WL 906670, at *9 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 2, 2026) (granting habeas relief pursuant to
§ 1226 when petitioner was not afforded a bond hearing). Further, an individualized
assessment as to the government’s interest in detaining Petitioner would ameliorate that
risk. Third, the government’s interest in detaining Petitioner is weak because they have
not established that Petitioner is unlikely to appear or that he poses any threat to the
community as he has no criminal history. See Pedro O. v. Garland, 543 F. Supp. 3d 733,
742 (D. Minn. 2021) (explaining that the justification for detention of noncitizens who
have been convicted of certain criminal offenses is stronger than the justification for
noncitizens without a criminal record); Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1153-54 (granting
habeas petition in part because there was no showing that public safety or attendance
concerns required detention). The Mathews factors weigh in favor of Petitioner. The
Court finds that requiring a bond hearing will balance the interests of Petitioner and
Respondents.
CASE 0:26-cv-01959-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 6 of 8

7
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Respondents’ motion to dismiss or transfer (Doc. No. [5]) is DENIED.
2. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
3. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner’s detention without an
individualized bond hearing violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
4. 	Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing
before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
5. 	If Respondents do not provide Petitioner with a bond hearing as required by
this Order, Petitioner must be immediately released from detention.
a. 	In the event that Respondents release Petitioner, they must do so:
(1) in Minnesota; (2) with all personal documents and belongings, such as his
driver’s license, passport, other immigration documents, and cell phone;
(3) without any conditions on release, including but not limited to requiring
Petitioner to sign an “Order of Release on Recognizance” or requiring Petitioner to
enroll in and complete an “Alternatives to Detention” program; (4) without any
tracking devices or use of a tracking application; and (5) with all clothing and
outerwear he was wearing at the time of detention, or other proper attire.
CASE 0:26-cv-01959-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 7 of 8

8
b. 	In addition, Respondents shall provide reasonable advance notice to
counsel to arrange for a safe release of Petitioner. Petitioner’s counsel is Patrick
Hellier who can be reached at 612-500-4327.
6. 	Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update concerning the results of any bond hearing conducted
pursuant to this Order, or if no bond hearing was held, advise the Court regarding
Petitioner’s release.
7. 	Respondents, or anyone acting in concert with Respondents, are
ENJOINED from removing, transferring, or otherwise facilitating the removal of
Petitioner from the District of Minnesota prior to the ordered bond hearing.
8. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Defendant Markwayne Mullin
for Defendant Kristi Noem on the docket.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 8, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01959-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 8 of 8