Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JONATHAN P. Y.-G.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and
BOBBY THOMPSON, Warden, South Texas
Detention Facility,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1100 (JRT/ECW)
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Jonathan P. Y.-G. is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Minneapolis,
Minnesota. 	(Verified Pet. Writ. Habeas Corpus ¶ 8, Feb. 5, 2026, Docket No. 1.)
“Petitioner has advanced type 2 diabetes, requiring daily insulin injections, and has not
received adequate care for his condition while in custody. In particular, he has been
without an adequate supply of insulin since he was detained on January 17, 2026.” (Id.
¶ 46.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01100-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
Given these urgent medical concerns, on February 5, 2025, the Court entered an
Order directing Respondents to file an answer to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
of Petitioner by no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 6, 2026. 	(Docket No. 3.) 	That
deadline passed, and no answer has been received.
At 5:20 p.m. on February 6, 2026, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer. (Docket No. 5.) This Motion will be denied. The Court concludes that in this
case, the District of Minnesota—where Petitioner resides, was arrested and detained, and
was his last known permanent location—is the proper forum for Petitioner to challenge
his detention as unlawful. See Gabriel A.H.L. v. Noem, No. 26-860, slip op. 6 at 5 (D. Minn.
Feb. 6, 2026). Moreover, the fact that Respondents’ motion asserts that Petitioner is in
Texas but jurisdiction is proper in the District of New Mexico further highlights the
difficulty of knowing Petitioner’s location and why jurisdiction is proper in Minnesota.
Respondents having failed to provide a substantive response by the deadline and
having failed to produce a warrant, the Court will grant the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and will order Petitioner’s immediate release. See e.g., Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No.
25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (collecting cases and concluding
that release is the appropriate remedy where the Government fails to produce a warrant
justifying Petitioner’s arrest and detention).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
CASE 0:26-cv-01100-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1. 	Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (Docket No. [5]) is DENIED.
2. 	Petitioner Jonathan P. Y.-G.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [1]) is
GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
b. 	If Petitioner is being detained outside of Minnesota, Respondents shall
TRANSPORT Petitioner to Minnesota and RELEASE Petitioner from custody
immediately. Petitioner’s release in Minnesota must occur no later than 48
hours after the filing of this Order.
c. 	If Petitioner is being detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall RELEASE
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours
from the filing of this Order.
d. 	Given the severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents are
ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon
Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in dangerous cold. 	It is
preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
e. 	Respondents must release Petitioner with all personal effects, such as
driver’s 	license, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
f. 	The parties shall provide the Court with a status update concerning the
status of Petitioner’s release by no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 9,
CASE 0:26-cv-01100-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
2026. 	Further, the parties shall advise the Court whether any additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: February 6, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 7:42 p.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01100-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 4