Garcia Cortes v. Guadian et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS
JAVIER ANDRES GARCIA CORTES,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT GUADIAN, Field Office Director, Denver Field Office, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
JUAN BALTAZAR, Warden of Denver Contract Detention Facility,
KRISTI NOEM, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Respondents.
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce or Alternative Motion to Amend
Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). ECF No. 17. In his motion, Petitioner represents,
consistent with Respondents’ prior status report, see ECF No. 15, that he has been
released from custody, but says Respondents have not returned all of his property,
including his driver’s license, employment authorization document, and passport. See
ECF No. 17 at 1.
Petitioner’s motion raises two obvious points. First, that documents such as these
are of paramount importance to him—as, the Court notes, they would be to anyone. And
second, that consistent with the Court’s prior order, see ECF No. 13, and caselaw cited
in it, see, e.g., Orellana Juarez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp. 3d 61, 69 (D. Mass. 2025),
Case No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS Document 18 filed 02/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
Respondents were and are obviously wrong to not return such items to Petitioner upon
his release from custody.
At its most benign, this failure is an unforced error of preventable dimension. At its
worst, this is unjustifiable intransigence, where retention of Petitioner’s belongings is
tantamount to imposition of an additional and illegal condition the immigration judge didn’t
and hasn’t imposed. Cf. id. (“Respondents may not impose additional conditions after an
IJ has ordered release on a bond and set conditions of release, as here.”). And certainly
it’s a violation of an order from this Court. See ECF No. 13 at 5 (“Respondents SHALL
NOT subject Petitioner to conditions of release that are inconsistent with the exact terms
as set by the Immigration Judge after the bond hearing.”).
The 	Motion, 	ECF 	No. 	17, 	is 	GRANTED. Respondents 	are 	ORDERED 	TO
IMMEDIATELY return to Petitioner ALL OF HIS BELONGINGS that are currently or have
ever been in their possession or in the possession of their agents. See Orellana Juarez,
788 F. Supp. at 70 (ordering that “if [petitioner’s] cellphone and wallet have not been
returned to him already, Respondents are directed to do so immediately”). Respondents
have THREE HOURS to file a status report confirming that such items have been returned
to Petitioner or Petitioner’s counsel, or explaining what steps have been undertaken to
return such items. If by three hours such items have not been returned, Respondents
shall file another status report by 5:00 P.M., February 6, 2026—which, lest there be any
confusion, is today—certifying that these possessions are in Petitioner’s possession, or
in the possession of Petitioner’s counsel.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS Document 18 filed 02/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
DATED this 6th day of February 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS Document 18 filed 02/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3