USA v. Perez

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND STRIKE
District Judge David Nuffer (sitting under designation from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
on Motions to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
SANTIAGO JESUS PEREZ, Defendant. 	Case No. 1:24-cr-01109-MLG
Defendant Santiago Jesus Perez seeks to disqualify Ryan Ellison from participating in the
prosecution of this case, and seeks to strike the government’s notice of expert witness testimony1
as void because it was filed at a time Mr. Ellison was improperly acting as United States
Attorney for the District of New Mexico (“Motion”).2 Mr. Perez’s Motion raises nearly identical
issues of fact and law as motions previously filed by numerous other defendants with pending
criminal cases in the District of New Mexico.3 These motions were premised on the argument
1 United States’ Amended Notice of Intention to Offer Expert Testimony, ECF no. 54, filed Aug. 21, 2025.
2 Defendant’s Motio not Disqualify the United States Attorney and Strike Notice of Expert Testimony (“Motion”),
ECF no. 70, filed Jan. 9, 2026.
3 Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 15 in United States v. Gomez,
1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 10, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 28 in United States v. Atole, 1:25-cr-03360-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 5, 2025; Motion to
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 12 in United States v. Magnuson,
1:25-cr-03856-KWR (D.N.M.), filed Nov. 12, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 20 in United States v. Lucero, 1:25-cr-03859-KWR (D.N.M.), filed Nov. 25, 2025; Motion to
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 16 in United States v. Othermedicine,
1:25-cr-03860-DHU (D.N.M.), filed Nov. 17, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 23 in United States v. Gallegos, 1:25-cr-03863-DHU (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 1, 2025; Motion to
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 16 in United States v. Urioste,
1:25-cr-04140-KG (D.N.M.), filed Jan. 9, 2026; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 16 in United States v. James, 1:25-cr-04142-KWR (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 1, 2025; Motion to
Case 1:24-cr-01109-MLG Document 108 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
that Mr. Ellison (who claimed to be the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New
Mexico) was not validly acting as United States Attorney. Just as Mr. Perez seeks in his Motion,
those defendants sought to void the actions of the United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”)
occurring after the date of Mr. Ellison’s resignation as interim United States Attorney, August
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 24 in United States v. Estrada,
1:25-cr-04147-DHU (D.N.M.), filed Jan. 9, 2026; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 16 in United States v. Robertson, 1:25-cr-04407-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 3, 2025; Motion to
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 17 in United States v. Whiteeagle,
1:25-cr-04650-DHU (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 1, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 18 in United States v. Mika, 1:25-cr-04824-DHU (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 5, 2025; Motion to
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 20 in United States v. Pablo,
1:25-cr-05037-DHU (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 10, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 25 in United States v. Guliford, 1:25-cr-05049-JB (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 10, 2025. Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 111 in United States v. Ramirez-
Martinez, 1:22-cr-01721-KWR (D.N.M.), filed Sept. 17, 2025; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment and
Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 100 in United States v. Brady, 1:24-cr-01105-MLG (D.N.M.), filed
Sept. 16, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 21 in United States v.
Esqueda, 1:25-cr-03250-JB (D.N.M.), filed Oct. 1, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United
States Attorney, ECF no. 20 in United States v. Chee, 1:25-cr-03353-JB (D.N.M.), filed Sept. 30, 2025; Motion to
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 20 in United States v. Black,
1:25-cr-03354-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Sept. 10, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 19 in United States v. Kee, 1:25-cv-03356-KG (D.N.M.), filed Sept. 16, 2025; Motion to Dismiss
Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, EFC no. 16 in United States v. Gunther, 1:25-cr-03366-JB
(D.N.M.), filed Sept. 15, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 16 in
United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Sept. 12, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and
Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 22 in United States v. SEALED, 1:25-cr-03837-MLG (D.N.M.), filed
under seal Oct. 7, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 21 in United
States v. Poellnitz, 1:25-cr-03858-KG (D.N.M.), filed Oct. 1, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify
United States Attorney, ECF no. 18 in United States v. Dominguez, 1:25-cr-03864-KG (D.N.M.), filed Oct. 14,
2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 19 in United States v. Sedillo,
1:25-cr-03865-JB (D.N.M.), filed Nov. 3, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States
Attorney, ECF no. 15 in United States v. Lopez, 1:25-cr-04139-DHU (D.N.M.), filed Oct. 30, 2025; Motion to
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 20 in United States v. Grey, 1:25-cr-04141-KG
(D.N.M.), filed Nov. 3, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 18 in
United States v. Cleveland, 1:25-cr-04145-DHU (D.N.M.), filed Oct. 16, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and
Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 17 in United States v. Archuleta, 1:25-cr-04412-DHU (D.N.M.), filed
Nov. 3, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 26 in United States v.
Benally, 1:25-cr-04413-KG (D.N.M.), filed Nov. 4, 2025; Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United
States Attorney, ECF no. 17 in United States v. McAfee, 1:25-cr-04418-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Nov. 3, 2025; Motion
to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 20 in United States v. Martinez,
2:25-cr-03253-SMD (D.N.M.), filed Sept. 10, 2025.
Because these motions, subsequent briefing on these motions, exhibits, and other relevant filings in each case are
substantively identical (see Motion Management Order, ECF no. 31 in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB
(D.N.M.), filed Sept. 24, 2025; Motion Management Order, ECF no. 18 in United States v. Gomez,
1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 15, 2025), this Memorandum Decision and Order will cite only to the
motion, subsequent briefing, exhibits, and other relevant filings made in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB
(D.N.M.), or United States v. Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), from this point on.
Case 1:24-cr-01109-MLG Document 108 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
13, 2025, including the decisions in the continued prosecution of charges against them because
Mr. Ellison lacked lawful authority to exercise the functions and duties of a United States
Attorney. And just as Mr. Perez seeks in his Motion, those defendants also sought to disqualify
Mr. Ellison from any role in supervising and participating in the prosecution of their cases.
Oral argument on the motions filed in some of these other cases was held on November
14, 2025.4 On January 14, 2026, a memorandum decision and order entered on the motions in
those cases.5 The memorandum decision and order determined that Ryan Ellison is not, and was
never, validly acting as United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico under 5 U.S.C.
§ 3345(a)(1), and that he had been invalidly claiming to serve in that capacity since his
resignation as interim United States Attorney on August 13, 2025.6 The memorandum decision
and order further determined that Mr. Ellison may not perform the functions and duties of the
United States Attorney as Acting United States Attorney, and that any claim, assertion, or
statement of Mr. Ellison, the USAO, or the administration that he is the Acting United States
Attorney, or interim United States Attorney, or United States Attorney is improper and
inaccurate.7 The memorandum decision and order indicated that after its entry, papers filed with
those designations of Mr. Ellison in the cases are improper and should be stricken.8
However, the memorandum decision and order also determined the defendants’
indictments and charges, and other actions taken in the prosecutions, would not be dismissed or
4 Clerk’s Minutes for Proceedings Held Before District Judge David Nuffer, ECF no. 49 in United States v. Garcia,
1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Nov. 14, 2025; Revised Redacted Transcript of Proceedings, ECF no. 56 in United
States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 18, 2025.
5 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in part and Denying in part Motions to Dismiss and Disqualify, ECF
no. 59 in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Jan. 14, 2026.
6 Id. at 52.
7 Id.
8 Id.
Case 1:24-cr-01109-MLG Document 108 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
void because they were lawfully signed by other attorneys for the government and there was no
showing of due process violations or other irregularities in the defendants’ prosecutions resulting
from Mr. Ellison’s claimed service as Acting United States Attorney.9 The memorandum
decision and order also determined that Mr. Ellison is validly serving as the First Assistant
United States Attorney (“FAUSA”) for the District of New Mexico and may perform the
functions and duties of that position as validly delegated to him by an order issued by Attorney
General Pamela Bondi on December 4, 2025.10 This includes “authority to supervise and conduct
legal proceedings” in the District of New Mexico and “supervising the conduct of Assistant
United States Attorneys and Special Assistant United States Attorneys working on such
proceedings.”11 And the memorandum decision and order determined that neither Mr. Ellison
nor other attorneys of the USAO would be disqualified from the defendants’ cases.12
A second memorandum decision and order then entered on January 29, 2026, in the
remaining cases having motions seeking to disqualify Mr. Ellison and to void the actions of the
USAO following Mr. Ellison’s resignation as interim United States Attorney.13 Because there
were no material factual or substantive distinctions between the issues and arguments raised in
among the cases,14 the second memorandum decision and order determined that oral argument
9 Id. at 53.
10 Id.
11 Id. (quoting Order, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Authorizing Ryan Ellison to Perform the Functions of the
United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Dec. 4, 2025, ECF no. 54-1 in United States v. Garcia,
1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 5, 2025).
12 Id.
13 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in part and Denying in part Motion to Dismiss and Disqualify, ECF
no. 34 in United States v. Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Jan. 29, 2026.
14 Compare Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 15 in United States v.
Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 10, 2025; Supplemental brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 20 in United States v. Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG
(D.N.M.), filed Dec. 16, 2025; Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify
United States Attorney, ECF no. 23 in United States v. Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 17, 2025;
Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF no. 24 in United States v. Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Dec.
Case 1:24-cr-01109-MLG Document 108 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
was unnecessary.15 The second memorandum decision and order determined that the discussion,
analysis, findings, and conclusions of the first memorandum decision and order apply equally to
the facts, issues, and arguments raised in the other cases, and dictate the same result.16
On February 2, 2026, Mr. Perez and the USAO were ordered to file supplemental
memoranda specifically addressing whether, and on what factual or legal basis, Mr. Perez’s
Motion would have a different result from the determinations on the defendants’ motions in the
other cases.17 Mr. Perez filed his supplemental memorandum on February 6, 2026, in which he
“concede[d] that the legal reasoning applied in the [prior memorandum decisions and orders]
effectively forecloses the relief should in his Motion at the District Court level.”18 Mr. Perez,
however, did not assent or agree to the denial of the relief sought in his Motion to preserve his
arguments against the prior memorandum decisions and orders conclusions regarding remedies
for appellate review.19
17, 2025; Reply in Support of Motio to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 29 in
United States v. Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Jan. 13, 2026; with Motion to Dismiss Indictment and
Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 16 in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Sept.
12, 2025; Amended Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United
States Attorney, ECF no. 35 in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Oct. 14, 2025; Reply in
Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 41 in United States v.
Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Oct. 24, 2025; Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF no. 42 in United
States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Oct. 29, 2025; Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to
Dismiss Indictment and Disqualify United States Attorney, ECF no. 53 in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB
(D.N.M.), filed Dec. 5, 2025; Supplemental Briefing by the United States, ECF no. 54 in United States v. Garcia,
1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 5, 2025; Response to Government’s Supplemental Briefing, ECF no. 57 in
United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 18, 2025; United States’ Response to Defendants’
Supplemental Brief, ECF no. 58 in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Dec. 19, 2025.
15 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in part and Denying in part Motion to Dismiss and Disqualify at 5-6,
ECF no. 34 in United States v. Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Jan. 29, 2026.
16 Id. at 6.
17 Motion Management Order at 5, ECF no. 92, filed Feb. 2, 2026.
18 Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify the United States Attorney and
Strike Notice of Expert Testimony at 2, ECF no. 95, filed Feb. 6, 2026.
19 Id. at 2-3.
Case 1:24-cr-01109-MLG Document 108 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
The USAO filed its supplemental memorandum (“US Supplemental Briefing”) on
February 10, 2026, agreeing with Mr. Perez that “nothing distinguishes this case or the relief
sought here from the cases already analyzed in the [prior memorandum decisions and orders].20
And the USAO indicated that it “does not request any reconsideration or any different remedy in
this case than [that] already imposed in [the] other cases[.]”21
Based on Mr. Perez and the USAO’s representations and concessions in their
supplemental memoranda, there are no material factual or substantive distinctions between the
issues and arguments raised in Mr. Perez’s Motion and those of the motions filed in the other
cases that were subject to the January 14, 2026, and January 29, 2026, memorandum decisions
and orders. Oral argument on Mr. Perez’s Motion is, therefore, unnecessary and would not affect
the Motion’s disposition. And Mr. Perez’s Motion is ripe for determination.
The discussion, analysis, findings, and conclusions of the January 14, 2026, and January
29, 2026, memorandum decisions and orders entered in the other cases apply equally to the facts,
issues, and arguments raised in Mr. Perez’s Motion, and dictate the same result. Therefore, the
discussion, analysis, findings, and conclusions of the memorandum decisions and orders entered
in the other cases22 are incorporated into this Memorandum Decision and Order. Mr. Perez’s
Motion is GRANTED in part because Ryan Ellison was not validly acting as United States
Attorney for the District of New Mexico following his resignation as interim United States
Attorney on August 13, 2025. Mr. Perez’s Motion is DENIED in part because he fails to
20 United States’ Supplemental Briefing on Motion to Disqualify the First Assistant United States Attorney and FBI
Expert Witness at 1, ECF no. 96, filed Feb. 10, 2026.
21 Id.
22 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in part and Denying in part Motions to Dismiss and Disqualify at
5-53, ECF no. 59 in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB (D.N.M.), filed Jan. 14, 2026; Memorandum
Decision and Order Granting in part and Denying in part Motion to Dismiss and Disqualify at 5-6, ECF no. 34 in
United States v. Gomez, 1:25-cr-03351-MLG (D.N.M.), filed Jan. 29, 2026.
Case 1:24-cr-01109-MLG Document 108 Filed 03/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
demonstrate that disqualification of Mr. Ellison or striking the government’s notice of expert
witness testimony23 are appropriate remedies.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Perez’s Motion24 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
Ryan Ellison is not, and was never, validly acting as United States Attorney for the
District of New Mexico under 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(1). He was invalidly claiming to serve in that
capacity since his resignation as interim United States Attorney on August 13, 2025. Mr. Ellison
may not perform the functions and duties of the United States Attorney as Acting United States
Attorney. And any claim, assertion, or statement of Mr. Ellison, the USAO, or the administration
that he is the Acting United States Attorney, or interim United States Attorney, or United States
Attorney is improper and inaccurate. After entry of this Memorandum Decision and Order,
papers filed with those designations in this case are improper and should be stricken. (The US
Supplemental Briefing complies with this directive.)
However, Mr. Ellison remains the FAUSA for the District of New Mexico and may
perform the functions and duties of that position and as validly delegated by Attorney General
Pamela Bondi’s December 4, 2025, order. This includes “authority to supervise and conduct
legal proceedings” in the District of New Mexico and “supervising the conduct of Assistant
United States Attorneys and Special Assistant United States Attorneys working on such
proceedings.”25 Mr. Ellison is not disqualified from Mr. Perez’s case.
23 United States’ Amended Notice of Intention to Offer Expert Testimony, ECF no. 54, filed Aug. 21, 2025.
24 ECF no. 70, filed Jan. 9, 2026.
25 Order, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Authorizing Ryan Ellison to Perform the Functions of the United States
Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Dec. 4, 2025, ECF no. 54-1 in United States v. Garcia, 1:25-cr-03549-JB
(D.N.M.), filed Dec. 5, 2025.
Case 1:24-cr-01109-MLG Document 108 Filed 03/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
The actions of the United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) occurring after the date of
Mr. Ellison’s resignation as interim United States Attorney, August 13, 2025, are not void
because they were lawfully made and signed by other attorneys for the government and there has
been no showing of due process violations or other irregularities resulting from Mr. Ellison’s
claimed service as Acting United States Attorney. This includes decisions in the continued
prosecution of charges against Mr. Perez and the government’s notice of expert witness
testimony.26
Signed March 13, 2026.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
26 United States’ Amended Notice of Intention to Offer Expert Testimony, ECF no. 54, filed Aug. 21, 2025.
Case 1:24-cr-01109-MLG Document 108 Filed 03/13/26 Page 8 of 8