Tilaguy-Rodriguez v. Bullock

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
LUIS ALBERTO TILAGUY-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:26-cv-03096-SHL-tmp
v.
CHRISTOPHER BULLOCK, New Orleans
Field Office Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and
Removal Operations,
Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
On August 24, 2026, pro se Petitioner Luis Alberto Tilaguy-Rodriguez filed his Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 2.) He challenges his continued detention
without an individualized bond hearing. (Id. at PageID 4.) He seeks immediate release from
Respondent’s custody. (Id. at PageID 3.) Respondent responded on September 4. (ECF No. 9.)
Petitioner replied on September 28. (ECF No. 10.) Respondent concedes that “this case is covered
by the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision” in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026).
(ECF No. 9 at PageID 123.)
For the reasons stated below, the Petition is GRANTED and Respondent is ORDERED to
immediately release Petitioner from custody.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Tilaguy-Rodriguez, a citizen of Colombia, has resided in the United States continuously
since May 2019. (ECF No. 2 at PageID 3.) He states that he “has substantial family and community
ties in the Memphis area,” including his wife, two daughters, one stepson, and three grandsons.1 (Id.
1 On September 2, this Court received a letter from Mr. Alan Becker, a friend of Mr. Tilaguy-
Rodriguez. (ECF No. 8.) Mr. Becker states that he considers Mr. Tilaguy-Rodriguez a friend, and
Case 2:26-cv-03096-SHL-tmp Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

2
at PageID 4.) 	He contends that he has a stable residence and was employed in Memphis prior to his
arrest. (Id.) He states that he has never missed an immigration hearing prior to his detainment. (Id.)
Mr. Tilaguy-Rodriguez states that he has no criminal record and no criminal charges pending. (Id. at
PageID 3, 5.) He was arrested by ICE agents on August 8, 2026, “while he was working outside a
residence in The Village of River Oaks, a gated community in Memphis.” (Id. at PageID 3.) At the
time of Petitioner’s Reply, he remained detained at the West Tennessee Detention Facility. (ECF
No. 11 at PageID 139.) He seeks immediate release from Respondent’s custody. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
Respondent concedes that Lopez-Campos governs this matter. (ECF No. 9 at PageID 123.)
Respondent maintains that “the Court should require Petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies”
before granting relief. (ECF No. 9 at PageID 124.) Specifically, according to Respondent, Petitioner
should be required to first request a bond hearing in immigration court before seeking habeas relief in
federal court. (Id.)
However, as the Court has ruled in recent immigration habeas petitions, e.g., Lopez Soza v.
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-CV-02224, 2026 WL 1104329, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 23,
2026), Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies is EXCUSED. The legal questions
presented by the Petition are fit for prompt resolution, and exhaustion would be futile because
Petitioner cannot seek meaningful and timely administrative relief. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S.
140, 144 (1992) (explaining that where a statute is silent as to exhaustion, requiring exhaustion is
within a court’s discretion).
describes him as “hardworking and responsible.” (Id. at PageID 122.) He further states that Mr.
Tilaguy-Rodriguez “fully obeys the laws of our country and deeply desires to stay in the United
States.” (Id.) While the issue of whether he ultimately remains in the United States is not for this
Court to decide, Mr. Becker’s letter is noteworthy because it shows that Mr. Tilaguy-Rodriguez has a
community that cares about him and grieves his absence, affirming Mr. Tilaguy-Rodriguez’s
“substantial community ties.”
Case 2:26-cv-03096-SHL-tmp Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

3
Petitioner “rightfully state[s] that [he has] a liberty interest to be free from detention.”
Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at 734. ICE’s decision to detain him without a bond hearing violated that
liberty interest, which cannot be casually tossed aside. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to immediate
release. See Villafranca Lara v. Ladwig, No. 26-CV-02079, 2026 WL 401204, at *10 (W.D. Tenn.
Feb. 12, 2026) (quoting Cardona v. Ladwig, No. 25-cv-01451, 2025 WL 3722009, at *7) (reasoning
that “because Petitioner’s rights to a bond hearing under §1226(a)” were denied, a bond hearing after
the fact “‘would not and cannot cure that constitutional violation,’” and while Petitioner’s release
today cannot cure his prior loss of liberty, “‘this remedy, relative to the procedural one of ordering a
bond hearing, is the one that comes closest to doing so.’”) (quoting Yao v. Almodovar, No. 25 CIV.
9982, 2025 WL 3653433, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025.)).
Therefore, consistent with Lopez-Campos and this Court’s decision in Villafranca Lara, and
after consideration of the record, the Petition is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondent is ORDERED to
immediately release Petitioner from custody, and immediately return to Petitioner any property
seized by the Government, including, but not limited to any documentation in the possession of
Petitioner at the time of his arrest and detainment. Respondent is further ORDERED to file a Status
Report with this Court within two business days, to certify compliance with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of October, 2026.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-03096-SHL-tmp Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
<pageID>