Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Andres S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Joel Brott, Sheriff of
Sherburne County, Minnesota;
Respondents.
File No. 26-CV-2004 (JMB/DLM)
ORDER
Mackenzie R. Moy, Zelle LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Andres S.
Matthew Isihara and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN,
for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, David Easterwood, and Joel
Brott.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Andres S.’s1 Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Petition) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(Doc. No. 1 [hereinafter, “Pet.”].)
Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, David Easterwood, and Joel
Brott (together, Respondents) are named in the Petition. For the reasons explained below,
the Court grants the Petition in part.
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-02004-JMB-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 5

2
FINDINGS OF FACT2
1. 	Andres S. is a citizen of Ecuador who has lived in the United States since
July 2024. (Pet. ¶ 13.)
2. 	Andres S. does not have a final order of removal. (Id. ¶ 14.)
3. 	On March 19, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained
Andres S. (Id. ¶ 15.)
4. 	Andres S. filed his Petition on March 23, 2026. (Pet.) He asks the Court to
immediately release him from custody or, in the alternative, to hold a prompt bond hearing
to determine whether he should remain in custody. (Id. at 16–17.)3
5. 	On March 24, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to respond to the Petition
by March 26, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. CT “certifying the true cause and proper duration of
Petitioner’s confinement and showing cause as to why the writ should not be granted in
this case,” including providing any supporting documentation that may be needed to
establish the lawfulness of Andres S.’s arrest and addressing whether “the absence of a
warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” 	(Doc.
No. 3.) That deadline passed, and Respondents did not timely file a response or a request
2 Because Respondents did not contest any of the factual allegations in the Petition, these
allegations are deemed admitted. 	See, e.g., Bland v. California Dep’t of Corr., 20 F.3d
1469, 1474 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When the State’s return fails to dispute the factual allegations
contained in the petition and traverse, it essentially admits those allegations.”), overruled
on other grounds by Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2000).
3 The Court concludes that any transfer of Andres S. outside of Minnesota after the
initiation of this proceeding does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction over his habeas
petition. See Weeks v. Wyrick, 638 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1981).
CASE 0:26-cv-02004-JMB-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 5

3
to extend the deadline imposed in the March 24, 2026 order.
DISCUSSION
Because Respondents failed to timely respond to the Petition, the Court considers
the relief in the Petition to be unopposed and therefore grants the Petition. See Rodriguez-
Quiroz v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 809, 822 n.6 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting that the government waived
an argument by failing to raise it in an immigration appeal); see also Estephanny P. v.
Bondi, No. 26-CV-198 (ECT/JFD), Doc. No. 10, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026) (citing
Doe v. Mayorkas, No. 22-cv-752 (ECT/DTS), 2022 WL 4450272, at *2 (D. Minn. Sep. 23,
2022) (concluding that failure to respond is an express waiver of those arguments or
claims)); Bland v. California Dep’t of Corr., 20 F.3d 1469, 1474 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When
the State’s return fails to dispute the factual allegations contained in the petition and
traverse, it essentially admits those allegations.”), overruled on other grounds by Schell v.
Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2000).
Respondents do not oppose the Petition and make no argument about whether 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b) or § 1226(a) applies to Andres S.’s case. The absence of any argument
from Respondents is sufficient grounds for granting the Petition.
Further, Respondents make no argument concerning the independent basis for the
petition, that detention violates Andres S.’s right to procedural due process. 	Again, the
absence of any argument from Respondents is sufficient grounds for granting the Petition.
Nevertheless, the Court separately grants the Petition on the merits of Andres S.’s
due process arguments, finding persuasive the analysis in Selvin Adonay E.M. v. Noem,
No. 25-CV-3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839, at *8–10 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025) and
CASE 0:26-cv-02004-JMB-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Matkarimov v. Noem, No. 26-CV-48-DLB, 2026 WL 700072, at *8 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 12,
2026). The Court therefore grants Andres S.’s Petition and orders immediate release.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Petition (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED, as follows:
1. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner Andres S. from custody
immediately in Minnesota without conditions, and in any event on or before
4:00 p.m. CT on March 27, 2026. Respondents are further ordered to provide
advanced notice to Petitioner’s Counsel of the time and location of the
release.
2. 	On or before 11:00 a.m. CT on March 30, 2026, counsel for Respondents
shall file a letter affirming that Petitioner was released from custody in
Minnesota without conditions in accordance with this Order. Counsel shall
also file a declaration on or before 11:00 a.m. CT on March 30, 2026,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 by an individual with personal knowledge that
states when and where the Petitioner was released, attaches any and all
documentation 	concerning 	the 	Petitioner’s 	release, 	and 	affirms 	with
supporting documentation that all property of Petitioner was returned to
Petitioner upon release (or, if property is retained, state which property is
retained, the legal basis for its retention, and affirm that Respondents duly
provided Petitioner with certified copies of any and all immigration-related
documentation). Respondents must submit each of the following three forms
to affirm return of Petitioner’s property: I-77, I-216, and G-589. 	If
Petitioner’s property is lost, Respondents must also submit form I-387,
“Report of Detainee’s Missing Property.” 	If Respondents cannot provide
one or more of these forms, Respondents must address why they are unable
to do so.
3. 	Andres S. may move separately within 30 days of final judgment in this
action to recover attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
4. 	To the extent Petitioner seeks relief beyond an order requiring release or an
order requiring a bond hearing, the Petition is DENIED.
CASE 0:26-cv-02004-JMB-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/26/26 Page 4 of 5

5
5. 	Respondents’ untimely Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 5) is
DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 26, 2026 	/s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-02004-JMB-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/26/26 Page 5 of 5