Perez v. Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARVIN JOEL COBON
PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, DIAMONDBACK
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-2742-SLP
O R D E R
Petitioner, Marvin Joel Cobon Perez, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. Before the Court is Respondents’ Response to
Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 9]. Respondents acknowledge that this matter is controlled
by the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1240 (10th
Cir. 2026).1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition [Doc. No. 1] as to
Petitioner’s statutory challenge to his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(a).2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED IN
PART. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a proper bond hearing,
1 Respondents nonetheless state they do not intend to waive appellate review and they do not
concede that Santillan Quiroz was correctly decided.
2 Petitioner requests, in relevant part, “his immediate release” from custody. [Doc. No. 1] at 3. The
Court finds in this instance that the proper remedy is to order the respondents to conduct a bond
hearing, as recognized by the Tenth Circuit in Quiroz. See Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1251 n. 13.
Case 5:26-cv-02742-SLP Document 10 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
before an immigration judge, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the
date of this Order.3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a Notice of Compliance
on or before 5:00 p.m., on October 20, 2026. If Respondents fail to timely comply,
including a failure to timely file a Notice, Petitioner shall immediately be released from
custody. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2243.4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ counsel is directed to provide a
copy of this Order to the warden of the facility where Petitioner is currently detained.
A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2026.
3 Because the Court finds that habeas relief should be granted on Petitioner’s statutory claim, the
Court declines to address his remaining claims.
4 “In issuing a writ of habeas corpus, a federal court has the power and authority to dispose of
habeas corpus matters as law and justice require.” Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir.
1992) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243); Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is a remedy
for unlawful executive detention. The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.”);
see also Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 107 (2020) (“Habeas has
traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention.”).
Case 5:26-cv-02742-SLP Document 10 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2