Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DIEGO ALEXANDER GOMEZ GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v. Civ. No. 26-0236-KG-KK
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center;
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Officer Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; TAE D. JOHNSON, Acting Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
Of Homeland Security,
Respondents.1
ORDER TO ANSWER AND SHOW CAUSE
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Diego Alexander Gomez Garcia’s pro se
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1) (Petition). Petitioner
is detained at the Otero County Processing Center. He entered the United States in 2022 and has
been living and working here since that time. (Doc. 1) at 3. Petitioner was taken into immigration
custody on December 2, 2025. Id. at 4. The Petition challenges his continued detention and, in
particular, the Immigration Court’s determination that it lacks jurisdiction to conduct a bond
hearing.
Accepting the facts as true, Petitioner has raised a colorable claim for relief that he is
detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225. See Garcia Sanchez v. Noem, et
al., 25-cv-1219 KG/JFR (concluding petitioner was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather
1 The pro se Petition names, inter alia, the Warden as a party Respondent. The Court adds the above-
mentioned parties as additional Respondents in this case. See Lowmaster v. Dir., Bureau of Prisons, 2024
WL 5135970, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2024) (“the Court notes that it routinely substitutes the” proper parties
as “respondent in habeas cases”); Danderson v. Page, 2024 WL 3913051, at *2 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024)
(substituting the proper party respondent in a habeas case).
Case 2:26-cv-00236-KG-KK Document 4 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
than 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and ordering Respondents to provide a bond hearing); Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-
Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.) (same); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL
45288, at *2 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.) (same). The Clerk’s Office has electronically served
Respondents by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case
Filing (CM/ECF) system. (Doc. 2). The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) shall answer
the Petition within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order and show cause, if any, why the
requested relief should not be granted. Petitioner may file an optional reply within seven (7)
business days after the answer brief is filed. If the USAO declines to timely respond, the Court
may enter a separate order granting relief, including a bond hearing, in accordance with its prior
rulings on this issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The United States Attorney’s Office must answer the Petition within ten (10) business days
of entry of this Order and show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.
2. If Petitioner wishes to file an optional reply, he must do so within seven (7) business days
after the response is filed.
3. The Clerk’s Office shall update CM/ECF to reflect the additional Respondents set forth
above.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales_______________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its authenticity,
please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF
(Notice of Electronic Filing) accompanying this
document. Electronically filed documents can be
found on the Court’s PACER public access system.
Case 2:26-cv-00236-KG-KK Document 4 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2