Puentes v. Warden Diamondback Correctional Facility

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUAN CARLOS PUENTES
PUENTES,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF DIAMONDBACK
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et
al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-2074-J
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Juan Carlos Puentes Puentes, a noncitizen proceeding pro se,1
filed a petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc.
1.2 United States District Judge Bernard M. Jones, II referred this matter to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.
1 	This 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	“uses 	the 	term 	‘noncitizen’ 	as
equivalent to the statutory term ‘alien.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578
n.2 (2020) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)). This Court construes “[a] pro se
litigant’s pleadings . . . liberally,” holding them “to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
2 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:26-cv-02074-J Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 3. Respondents filed a response to the petition, Doc. 7,
and Petitioner filed a reply, Doc. 8. So, the matter is at issue.
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the
Court GRANT the petition in part and order Respondents to provide Petitioner
with an individualized bond hearing within ten days or otherwise release him
from custody.
I. 	Factual background and procedural history.
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States on or
around May 4, 2022. Doc. 1, at 12. On May 25, 2022, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner by
filing 	a 	Notice 	to 	Appear 	(NTA) 	with 	the 	Immigration 	Court, 	charging
Petitioner as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(II).3 See Doc. 7, Ex.
1, at 1. On that same date, DHS ordered Petitioner released on his own
recognizance. Id. Ex. 2.
On 	March 	4, 	2025, 	an 	Immigration 	Judge 	(IJ) 	denied 	Petitioner’s
applications for immigration relief and ordered him removed to Colombia. Id.
3 	A noncitizen is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) when,
at the time of the noncitizen’s application for admission into the United States,
they possess a visa that was issued without compliance with the provisions of
section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Case 5:26-cv-02074-J Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Ex. 3. On March 26, 2025, Petitioner timely appealed the IJ’s decision to the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Id. Ex. 4. To date, Petitioner’s appeal
remains pending at the BIA.4
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Petitioner on
July 7, 2026, at a routine check-in. Doc. 1, at 12. ICE is currently detaining
Petitioner at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma.5
Doc. 1; Doc. 7, at 3.
II. 	Petitioner’s claims.
Petitioner alleges that: (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs his detention and
he is entitled to a bond hearing under Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th
1226 (10th Cir. 2026), “with the burden to prove a flight risk or danger to the
community 	falling 	on 	the 	Government;” 	(2) 	his 	detention 	without 	notice
violates his procedural due process rights under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319 (1976); and (3) that Respondents’ failure to provide him with a bond
hearing under § 1226(a) violates the INA and the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA). Doc. 1, at 9-11.
4 	See 	EOIR, 	Automated 	Case 	Information,
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited Oct. 13, 2026).
5 	See 	USCIS, 	Online 	Detainee 	Locator 	System,
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited Oct. 13, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-02074-J Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
Petitioner requests that the Court grant his Petition, order Respondents
to either provide him with a bond hearing or immediately release him, prevent
Respondents from re-detaining him without proper notice and a change in
circumstances, and grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper. Id.
at 12.
III. 	Standard of review.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus “is an attack by a person in
custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of
the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 484 (1973). Habeas corpus relief is warranted only if the petitioner “is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “Challenges to immigration detention are
properly brought directly through habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d
1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88
(2001)).
IV. 	Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
Respondents 	do 	“not 	dispute 	that, 	in 	light 	of 	[Santillan] 	Quiroz,
Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a)” and that section “permits custody
redetermination by an Immigration Judge.” Doc. 7, at 4. The undersigned
agrees and concludes that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. See, e.g.,
Case 5:26-cv-02074-J Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1247 (explaining that noncitizens subject to
§1226(a) are “eligible for bond”).
Section “1226(a) contemplates individualized custody determinations
and authorizes release on bond or conditional parole pending completion of
removal 	proceedings.” 	Zhakhonov 	v. 	Grant, 	No. 	CIV-26-350-J, 	2026 	WL
1865418, at *3 (W.D. Okla. June 29, 2026). Here, Respondents have not
provided Petitioner with an individualized custody determination since his
detention in July 2026. Doc. 1, at 12; see, e.g., Zhakhonov, 2026 WL 1865418,
at *3 (“[T]he process afforded by § 1226(a) itself serves as the mechanism
through which a detainee's liberty interest is protected.”). Because this is “the
very process Congress prescribed for detainees held pursuant to § 1226(a),” he
is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Zhakhonov, 2026 WL 1865418,
at *3; see also Navarrete v. Mullin, No. CIV-26-224-SLP, 2026 WL 2323345, at
*2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 11, 2026) (finding the petitioner had a “protected liberty
interest arising from her release on her own recognizance” and that the level
of process owed to her was “for Respondents to provide [her] with a bond
hearing 	pursuant 	to 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 1226”); 	Todyrenchuk 	v. 	Warden 	of
Diamondback Corr. Facility, No. CIV-26-1243-J, 2026 WL 2186977, at *3
(W.D. Okla. July 29, 2026) (“[T]he Court concludes the proper remedy in this
Case 5:26-cv-02074-J Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
case is not immediate release, but an individualized bond hearing before an
Immigration Judge exercising jurisdiction under § 1226(a).”).
Therefore, 	the 	Court 	should 	grant 	the 	petition 	in 	part 	and 	order
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within
ten days; if they fail to do so, they must release Petitioner.6 See, e.g., Santillan
Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1251 n.13 (directing district court to order the government
to provide the petitioner a bond hearing within seven days “[b]ecause [the
petitioner] can properly be subject to detention under § 1226(a).”); see also
Colin v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Dec.
16, 2025) (“Petitioner has not received a bond hearing and Respondents raise
no 	objection 	challenging 	their 	obligations 	to 	provide 	bond 	hearings 	for
noncitizens that are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).”).
6 	Petitioner requests that the Court place the burden on the Government
at a bond hearing to demonstrate that he is not a danger to the community or
a flight risk. Doc. 1, at 9; Doc. 8. But the Court has previously declined to order
burden shifting. See, e.g., Zhang v. U.S. District Court, 2026 WL 2323190, at
*1 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 11, 2026) (“[T]he Court declines to place the burden on the
Government to justify Petitioner's detention pending removal proceedings, at
this time.”); Rangel v. Mullin, No. CIV-26-568-D, 2026 WL 1625653, at *2 n.2
(W.D. Okla. June 5, 2026) (“At this time, the Court declines to place the burden
on 	the 	government 	to 	justify 	Petitioner’s 	detention 	pending 	removal
proceedings.”). So the undersigned similarly does not recommend a burden-
shifting framework in this case.
Case 5:26-cv-02074-J Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
V. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
grant Petitioner's habeas petition in part and order Respondents to
provide 	Petitioner 	with 	an 	individualized 	bond 	hearing 	before 	a
neutral IJ within ten days; if they fail to do so, they must release
Petitioner.7 	The 	undersigned 	also 	recommends 	that 	the 	Court 	order
Respondents to certify their compliance by filing a status report within ten
business days of the Court’s order, and to promptly provide a copy of this order
to counsel for the Warden of the Diamondback Correctional Facility.
The undersigned advises the parties of their right to file an objection to
this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by October 20,
7 	Given the undersigned’s recommendation to grant Petitioner a bond
hearing, the Court should decline to address Petitioner’s remaining claims for
relief. The Court can grant him relief under § 1226(a). See Colin, 2025 WL
3645176, at *6 n.3 (“Because the Court grants the relief the Petitioner requests
based on the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Court declines to decide
the merits of Petitioner’s due process claim.”); see also Ramos Perez v. Grant,
CIV-26-721-D , 2026 	WL 	2033144, 	at 	*2 	n.2 	(W.D. 	Okla. 	July 	14, 	2026)
(declining to address the petitioner’s remaining claims after ordering a bond
hearing); Singh v. Cerna, No. CIV-26-757-R, 2026 WL 1973892, at *1 (W.D.
Okla. July 8, 2026) (declining to address the petitioner’s due process and “other
claims” because the court was granting the petitioner habeas corpus relief on
the basis of his statutory claim and directing the respondents to provide him
with a bond hearing under § 1226(a)).
Case 5:26-cv-02074-J Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
2026, in accordance 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.8
The undersigned further advises the parties that failure to make timely
objections to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate
review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This Report and Recommendation
disposes of the issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the
captioned matter.
ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2026.
8 	Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has
reduced the typical objection time to this Report and Recommendation. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) advisory committee's note to 1983 addition (noting that
rule establishing 14-day response time “does not extend to habeas corpus
petitions, which are covered by the specific rules relating to proceedings under
Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.”); see also Whitmore v. Parker, 484 F. App'x
227, 231 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases may be
applied discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241” and that “while the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in habeas proceedings, they
need not be in every instance–particularly where strict application would
undermine the habeas review process”).
Case 5:26-cv-02074-J Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 8 of 8