Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CLAUDIO GUANGA DUTAN,
Petitioner,
– against –
HERIBERTO TELLEZ, in his official
capacity as Warden, Metropolitan
Detention Center, TODD LYONS, in his
official capacity as Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity
as Attorney General of the United States,
and KRISTI NOEM, in her official
capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-cv-00600 (NCM)
NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:
On September 26, 2025, petitioner Claudio Guanga Dutan was arrested and
detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Pet. for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (“Petition”) ¶ 19, ECF No. 1. Petitioner has been detained at various ICE facilities
since his arrest and is currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”)
in Brooklyn, New York. Pet. ¶ 21. Petitioner has not been provided a bond hearing. See Pet.
¶ 12. He now petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Pet. ¶¶ 29–30. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an Ecuadorian national who has continuously resided in the United
States since his arrival on June 13, 2002. Pet. ¶¶ 15–16. Petitioner crossed the border
without inspection near Douglas, Arizona and was apprehended and detained by U.S.
Case 1:26-cv-00600-NCM Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Customs and Border Patrol the same day. See Pet. ¶ 16; see also Resp. to Order to Show
Cause (“Response”) 1, ECF No. 9. 1 Shortly thereafter, petitioner was served with a Notice
to Appear before an immigration judge with the Executive Office for Immigration Review
(“EOIR”) at a date to be set and charged as a noncitizen “present in the United States
without being admitted or paroled” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Pet. ¶ 17; see
also Resp. 1–2. The EOIR later scheduled a master calendar hearing; petitioner appeared
at that hearing without an attorney, and the immigration judge reset the case for the
following month to permit petitioner to find counsel. Decl. of Frank Franco (“Franco
Decl.”) ¶¶ 7–8, ECF No. 9-1.
The next week petitioner appeared through counsel and requested to be released
on bond. Franco Decl. ¶¶ 9–10; see also Resp. 2. The immigration judge granted the
request and ordered petitioner to be released upon posting $6,000 bond. Resp. 2.
Petitioner posted bond and was released from custody on July 3, 2002. Resp. 2. Petitioner
and his counsel failed to appear for his next immigration hearing on November 26, 2002,
and he was ordered removed from the United States in absentia. Pet. ¶ 18; see also Resp.
2.
More than twenty years later, plaintiff was arrested in Haverstraw, New York for a
Class A misdemeanor. See Resp. 2. ICE was notified of the arrest and issued a detainer for
petitioner. Resp. 2. On September 26, 2025, two weeks after the arrest, ICE officers
targeted, followed, and arrested petitioner outside of his home. See Resp. 2; Pet. ¶ 19; see
also Franco Decl. ¶ 21. Petitioner has been held in custody at various ICE facilities since
1 	Throughout this Order, page numbers for docket filings refer to the page numbers
assigned in ECF filing headers.
Case 1:26-cv-00600-NCM Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
then. See Resp. 2. On October 14, 2025, petitioner moved to reopen removal proceedings,
and the request was granted three months later. Pet. ¶ 20; Resp. 2. Petitioner is now in
removal proceedings before Immigration Judge Dara Reid, and a master hearing is
scheduled for the morning of February 12, 2026. Pet. ¶ 22.
Petitioner is currently being held by ICE at the MDC. Pet. ¶ 21. He commenced the
instant action on February 3, 2026 by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Pet.
The same day, the Court issued an order directing respondents to show cause why the relief
sought in the writ should not be granted. Scheduling Order 2, ECF No. 5. The government
filed a letter-response in lieu of a formal memorandum of law on February 9, 2026, which
discussed the Court’s prior decision granting a writ of habeas corpus under similar factual
circumstances, Crespo Tacuri v. Genalo, No. 25-cv-06896, 2026 WL 35569 (E.D.N.Y. Jan.
6, 2026). See Resp. 2–3. The response stated that while respondents “respectfully disagree
with the Court’s decision in Crespo Tacuri, they acknowledge that the decision would
control the result in this case . . . as the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable.”
Resp. 3.
LEGAL STANDARD
Section 2241 authorizes federal district courts “to grant a writ of habeas corpus
whenever a petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3)). 2 Under Section 2241, “[f]ederal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas
corpus claims by noncitizens challenging the constitutionality of their 	detention.”
Rodriguez-Acurio v. Almodovar, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-06065, 2025 WL 3314420,
2 	Throughout this Order, the Court omits all internal quotation marks, footnotes, and
citations, and adopts all alterations, unless otherwise indicated.
Case 1:26-cv-00600-NCM Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2025) (citing Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 850 (2d Cir.
2020)).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends, among other things, that he is being detained in violation of
his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Pet. 6. The government’s
response does not meaningfully dispute these assertions aside from stating that “to
conserve judicial resources and to expedite the Court’s consideration of this case, . . .
[r]espondents hereby rely upon, and incorporate by reference, the legal arguments
presented by the [g]overnment in Crespo Tacuri.” Resp. 4. 3 Accordingly, for the reasons
stated by this Court in Crespo Tacuri, which the Court incorporates here by reference, the
Court concludes that petitioner is being unlawfully detained pursuant to Section 1226 and
in violation of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. See Crespo Tacuri,
2026 WL 35569, at *7; see also Y- C- v. Genalo, No. 25-cv-06558, 2025 WL 3653496, at
*6–7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025); Ccorihuaman v. Genalo, No. 26-cv-00554, 2026 WL
328983, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2026). “Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful
executive detention” and “[t]he typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.”
3 	For this reason, and for the avoidance of doubt, the Court does not address any legal
or factual argument that respondents do not raise here or did not raise in their briefing in
Crespo Tacuri. See Catania v. United Fed’n of Tchrs., No. 21-cv-01257, 2023 WL 1962533,
at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2023) (“Courts generally do not decide issues not raised by the
parties.” (quoting Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 482 (2009) (Alito, J., concurring))); see also
Russell v. Bd. of Plumbing Exam’rs, 1 F. App’x 38, 41 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order) (“We
are, however, troubled by the district court reaching an issue neither pressed nor briefed
before it, and urge against such a practice in the future.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00600-NCM Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008). The Court therefore deems petitioner entitled
to immediate release. 4
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that petitioner’s detention violates the
Due Process Clause. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore GRANTED.
Respondents are directed to release the petitioner from custody within 24 hours of
this Order and file a letter on the docket no later than 12:00 p.m. on February 12, 2026
certifying their compliance. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court concludes that
petitioner “is entitled to release from the unlawful restrictions on his liberty—which
means, in the circumstances here, restoration of . . . the status quo ante.” Khabazha v. ICE,
No. 25-cv-05279, 2025 WL 3281514, at *8–9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025) (ordering
government to release petitioner from “restrictions on his liberty imposed as a result of his
unlawful [detention] . . . including the ankle monitor and reporting requirements”); see
also Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2. This Order includes “an injunction barring
deprivation of the [petitioner’s] rights without the requisite procedural protections.”
Khabazha, 2025 WL 3281514, at *8; see also Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2.
4 	The Court does not address petitioner’s argument concerning substantive due
process, see Pet. 6, in light of the conclusion that petitioner’s detention violates his
procedural due process rights. See Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2 n.3.
Case 1:26-cv-00600-NCM Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with the
Order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Natasha C. Merle
NATASHA C. MERLE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 11, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00600-NCM Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>