Esau Calderon v. Baltazar et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 26-cv-00692-CYC
MILTON DUBLI ESAU CALDERON1,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTAZAR, Warden, GEO Aurora Contract Detention Facility, in his official capacity;
ROBERT HAGAN, Director, Denver Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, in his official
capacity;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; and
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Milton Dubli Esau Calderon, a detainee at the GEO Aurora Contract
Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that
the respondents, who control that facility, are improperly subjecting him to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 1 (the “Petition”). Instead, he says, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) governs his detention vel non. Because this is a fundamentally legal debate, there
is no need for a hearing on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons that follow,
the Court grants in part the Petition.
1 The Notice to Appear identifies the Petitioner as Milton Douglas Calderon Marroquin. ECF No.
1-2 at 1. Regardless, the Petitioner’s A-Number is 221-478-351. That is the individual who is
detained and seeks relief.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00692-CYC Document 12 filed 03/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
BACKGROUND
This case is one of numerous cases in this District and across the country seeking
habeas relief for immigrants detained within the United States under a new interpretation of 8
U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL
290989 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Jimenez Facio v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03592-CYC, 2025
WL 3559128 (D. Colo. Dec. 12, 2025); Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02677-CNS, 2025
WL 2652880 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Batz Barreno v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-03017-GPG-
TPO, 2025 WL 3190936 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2025); Loa Caballero v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-
03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025). The petitioner seeks release or, in
the alternative, a bond hearing, and legal fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 21–22.
The petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, has lived in the United States since he entered
without inspection more than nine years ago. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 4, 15–17. As a result, he had been
present in the United States for years before he was encountered by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement officers on an unknown date prior to January 29, 2026, when he requested a bond
hearing. Id. ¶ 20; ECF No. 1-2 at 4. The petitioner states that he was denied bond because the
Immigration Judge lacked jurisdiction and argues that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226 and that he has no criminal record, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 20–25, 29, 34–46, 49–51; ECF
No. 1-2 at 4, and the respondents do not offer any evidence of a criminal history that requires
mandatory detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Instead, they maintain that he is detained pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). ECF No. 11 at 1–3.
ANALYSIS
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to any person who demonstrates he is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00692-CYC Document 12 filed 03/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
This includes “[c]hallenges to immigration detention.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305,
1310 (10th Cir. 2004). The individual in custody bears the burden of proving that their detention
is unlawful. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 286 (1941).
To meet that burden, the petitioner argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies to him, “that
aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention,” Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) (providing for discretionary detention); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (providing
framework for requesting a bond determination), and that his continued detention premised on 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 20–25, 29, 34–46, 49–51. The Court has previously resolved this legal question in
favor of a similarly situated petitioner. Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. The
respondents recognize this, but “respectfully disagree with that ruling.” ECF No. 11 at 1–2. The
Court remains firmly convinced that it and the other judges in the District who have addressed
this issue have correctly decided those cases and incorporates its analysis from Jimenez Facio.
2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. To the extent the respondents contend that the Fifth Circuit’s recent
decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 502–08 (5th Cir. 2026), makes a
difference, see ECF No. 11 at 2–3, Judge Sweeney’s thorough rebuttal of that divided decision
provides a solid foundation to maintain the consensus that exists in this District. See Singh v.
Baltazar, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 352870, at *3–6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026). Accordingly,
the Court finds that the petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and his continued
detention without a bond hearing is therefore a violation of due process.
There is a final matter. The petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 22.
But D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3(a) requires that “a motion for attorney fees . . . be supported by
Case No. 1:26-cv-00692-CYC Document 12 filed 03/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
affidavit,” and no such affidavit supported the request. Further, “a motion involving a contested
issue of law shall . . . be supported by a recitation of legal authority in the motion.”
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). As a result, the Court denies this portion of the Petition without
prejudice. If the petitioner chooses to file a motion for attorney fees, it must comply with all
applicable rules and provide legal authority for the request. See L.G. v. Choate, 744 F. Supp. 3d
1172, 1187 (D. Colo. 2024).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part.
It is further ORDERED that
(1) the respondents shall provide the petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven days of this Order;
(2) the respondents are ENJOINED from denying bond to the petitioner on the basis that
he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); and
(3) the respondents shall file a status report within seven days of the petitioner’s bond
hearing, stating whether he has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was
denied, the reasons for that denial.
Entered and dated this 6th day of March, 2026, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00692-CYC Document 12 filed 03/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4