Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RAUL DURAN GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01468-MIS-GBW
TODD 	M. 	LYONS; 	Acting 	Director 	of
Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement;
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office
Director 	of 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement and Removal Operations, El
Paso 	Field 	Office; 	MARKWAYNE
MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland 	Security; 	TODD 	BLANCHE,
Acting U.S. Attorney General; and GEORGE
DEDOS, Torrance County Detention Center,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Raul Duran Gutierrez’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed May 10, 2026. Respondents Todd M. Lyons, Mary
De Anda-Ybarra, Markwayne Mullin, and Todd Blanche (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a
Response on May 26, 2026, ECF No. 6.
Respondents argue that Petitioner is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 2. Respondents acknowledge, however, “this Court
recently reached the opposite conclusion in Duhan v. Noem, Case No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR,
1 	Respondent George Dedos did not file a response or otherwise appear in this case. It has become
standard practice in these habeas cases for the warden of the relevant detention center to either appear and adopt the
federal respondents’ arguments, see, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, Notice of
Joinder In USA Respondents’ Forthcoming Claims and Defenses, ECF No. 11 (D.N.M. Dec. 3, 2025), or not appear
at all, see Francisco v. Dedos, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF, Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
at 8, ECF No. 53 (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026).
Case 1:26-cv-01468-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20895 (D.N.M. Feb. 2, 2026) on facts substantially similar” to this case.
Id. Respondents further acknowledge that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control
the result here if the Court adheres to that decision.” Id. at 3.
Ultimately, the Court finds that Respondents did not distinguish this case from other cases
involving the detention of noncitizens already present in the United States. Id. at 1-3. As the facts
of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases the Undersigned Judge has decided
involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the United States, rather than at a border
crossing or port of entry, the Court adopts the findings contained in its Order Granting the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No. 2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026
WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs
Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his Fifth
Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief. The Court further
finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s continued detention
and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 6.
The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation
bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk.
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order and to entertain any
motions for attorneys’ fees.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Raul Duran Gutierrez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1,
is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention;
Case 1:26-cv-01468-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
4. 	Respondents SHALL NOT impose any new condition of release;
5. 	Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order; and
6. 	The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order and to entertain
any motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01468-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 05/27/26 Page 3 of 3