Matias v. Mullin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANGEL ANFELINO PEREZ MATIAS, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-1801-G
)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Angel Anfelino Perez Matias, a citizen of Guatemala proceeding pro se,1
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) challenging
his detention by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 	(Doc. 1).2
United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred the matter to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C).
(Doc. 3). 	The matter is at issue. 	As fully set forth below, the undersigned recommends
that the Petition be GRANTED in part because Petitioner’s detention without a bond
hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The Court should order an
individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge within 7 days of the
1 A pro se litigant’s pleadings are liberally construed “and held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 	Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991); see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). 	But the court
cannot serve as Petitioner’s advocate, creating arguments on his behalf. 	See Yang v.
Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
2 Citations to the parties’ filings and attached exhibits will refer to this Court’s CM/ECF
pagination.
Case 5:26-cv-01801-G Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 5

2
judgment in this matter, or else release him from custody. 	Additionally, Petitioner’s
Motion for Review of My Case, (Doc. 9), should be denied as moot.
I. 	Factual Background
The relevant facts in this matter are:
• 	Petitioner is citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States on or about
January 30, 2019. (Doc. 7, Ex. 2, at 1).
• 	Petitioner was placed into removal proceedings on March 29, 2023, when he
was issued a Notice to Appear charging him as being an alien present in the
United States who has not been admitted or paroled. (Id.)
• 	Petitioner was arrested in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, on March 20, 2026, for
driving under the influence of alcohol. (Id. at Ex. 3, at 5). He was transferred
to ICE custody pursuant to an administrative warrant on June 8, 2026. (Id.
at 1, 4).
• 	Petitioner alleges, and Respondents do not contest, that he has not been
provided with a bond hearing. (Doc. 1, at 6).
• 	An Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner’s removal on September 8, 2026,
but 	Petitioner 	filed 	a 	timely 	appeal, 	which 	is 	pending. 	EOIR 	Case
Information https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (last accessed Oct. 14, 2026).
Thus, his order of removal is not administratively final.
• 	Petitioner 	is 	detained 	at 	Cimarron 	Correctional 	Facility 	in 	Cushing,
Oklahoma. (Doc. 1, at 1).
II. 	Petitioner’s Claims and Respondents’ Responses
Petitioner makes the following claims in support of his Petition:
1. 	Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and violation of 8 C.F.R.
§§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i).3 (Doc. 1, at 6).
3 The referenced regulations apply to non-citizens who remain detained after their removal
orders have become administratively final and they have been subject to a 90-day period
of mandatory detention, and thus the regulations are inapplicable to Petitioner.
Case 5:26-cv-01801-G Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 5

3
2. 	Violation 	of 	the 	INA 	because 	he 	has 	“not 	been 	afforded 	with 	an
individualized bond hearing since being detained.” (Id.)
3. 	Violation of the INA because he was detained “without being served an
issued warrant for my arrest by an Attorney General.”4 (Id.)
As relief, Petitioner requests his immediate release from custody or release on parole. (Id.
at 7).
While Respondents contend that Petitioner is held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)
and is not entitled to a bond hearing, they concede that “this matter is controlled by” the
Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226 (10th Cir.
2026). (Doc. 7, at 1). “Respondents request that any order be limited to ordering a bond
hearing within seven days.” (Id. at 2).
III. 	Standard of Review
To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show that he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3). 	“Challenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly through
habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001)).
IV. 	Under Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, Petitioner Is Entitled to a Bond Hearing.
On June 30, 2026, the Tenth Circuit decided Santillan Quiroz, holding “that
noncitizens who entered the United States and were thereafter detained in the interior of
4 Respondents attached to their Response an administrative warrant including a certificate
of service signed by a deportation officer who stated the warrant was served on Petitioner.
(Doc. 7, at Ex. 3, at 1).
Case 5:26-cv-01801-G Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 5

4
the country are usually subject to [8 U.S.C.] § 1226(a) (and thus eligible for bond), not [8
U.S.C.] § 1225(b)(2)(A).” 180 F.4th at 1237. This statutory interpretation is binding on
this Court and applicable to Petitioner’s factual circumstances, as Respondents concede.
Because Petitioner is subject to § 1226(a) and has not received a bond hearing,
Petitioner has shown that he is in custody in violation of the laws of the United States, and
he is entitled to habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). While Petitioner seeks immediate
release, a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. 	Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1251
n.13.
Because the undersigned recommends granting habeas relief on the basis of a
violation of the INA, it is unnecessary to address Petitioner’s other claims.
V. 	Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned recommends that the Petition,
(Doc. 1), be GRANTED in part. 	The undersigned recommends that the Court order
Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before a neutral
immigration judge within 7 days of the judgment in this matter, or else release him from
custody. 	Additionally, Petitioner’s Motion for Review of My Case, (Doc. 9), should be
denied as moot.
The Court advises the parties of their right to object to this Report and
Recommendation by October 21, 2026, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2).5 The Court advises the parties that failure to make timely objection to this Report
5 Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has reduced the typical
objection time to Report and Recommendations. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) advisory
Case 5:26-cv-01801-G Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 5

5
and Recommendation waives their right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues
contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge and terminates the referral unless and until the matter is re-referred.
ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2026.
committee’s note to 1983 addition (noting that rule establishing 14-day response time
“does not extend to habeas corpus petitions, which are covered by the specific rules relating
to proceedings under Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.”); see also Whitmore v. Parker,
484 F. App’x 227, 231, 231 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases may
be applied discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241” and that “while the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in habeas proceedings, they need not be in every
instance – particularly where strict application would undermine the habeas review
process.”).
Case 5:26-cv-01801-G Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 5