Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DELSY NOEMI FLORES MENA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-1133-KG-GJF
ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States;
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
TODD LYONS, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
EL PASO FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center,
Respondents.1
ORDER TO ANSWER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) (Petition). Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 and requests, inter alia, that the Court order federal immigration officials to release her
from custody. (Doc. 1) at 13.
Having conducted an initial review of the Petition, the Court finds the alleged facts raise
a colorable claim for relief. It does not appear Petitioner has been provided a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and it does not appear that she is being detained pursuant to a final order
of removal. See Garcia Sanchez v. Noem, et al., 25-cv-1219 KG/JFR (concluding petitioner
was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather 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,
1 The Court adds/substitutes the above-listed parties as Respondents in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21
(“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.”); 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-01133-MLG-GJF Document 4 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
J.) (same).
The Clerk’s Office has electronically served a copy of the petition in this matter on all
federal respondents by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and
Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. See (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 why the requested relief should not be granted. See Habeas Rules 1(b), 4 (courts have
discretion to set a time for respondents to answer a habeas petition). Petitioner may file an
optional reply within ten (10) business days after the answer brief is filed. If the USAO declines
to timely respond, the Court may enter a separate order directing the Immigration Court to
conduct 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, she must do so within ten (10) business days
after Respondents’ response is filed; and
3. The Clerk’s Office shall add the additional party Respondents set forth in the caption of
this Order to the docket of this case.
/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-01133-MLG-GJF Document 4 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2