Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mario Fernando Torres Ortiz, a federal immigration detainee held at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 13, 2026, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations, served them on all parties, and notified the parties that any objections were due within three days.
On October 16, 2026, Respondents — the Warden of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center and others — objected, arguing that Torres Ortiz was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). They pointed to the statute's post-deprivation bond hearing provision and asserted that an immigration judge had already conducted a bond hearing, applied danger and flight-risk factors, and issued a bond denial that remained unappealed. The district court observed that these arguments had already been addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned judge in other recent decisions.
On October 23, 2026, United States District Judge Dena Coggins issued the order adopting the findings and recommendations; the order was entered on the docket on October 26, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that due process relief is warranted where the government revokes a noncitizen's liberty without prior notice or a pre-deprivation bond hearing and then fails to provide the procedural protections of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within a reasonable period of time. It cited decisions granting relief where a prompt custody redetermination hearing was required, where the hearing did not occur until nearly two months after detention, and where a requested hearing had not been provided during three months of detention. Respondents' objections therefore supplied no basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.
After conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the court found the amended findings and recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis. It adopted them, granted the habeas petition, and ordered Torres Ortiz released immediately under the same conditions that applied immediately before his detention in June 2026. Respondent could not impose any additional restriction, such as electronic monitoring, unless a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing determined it necessary.
The order further required return of Torres Ortiz's documents and possessions upon release and a notice of compliance within three days. If the government seeks to re-detain him, it must give at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which his bond eligibility is considered. The court expressly left open the circumstances in which Respondent may detain him if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of it. Pending motions were denied as moot, and the Clerk was directed to serve the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, enter judgment for Torres Ortiz, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- An existing bond denial did not defeat relief where the court found that the government had failed to provide required custody process within a reasonable time after detention without prior notice or a pre-deprivation hearing.
- The district court independently reviewed the record de novo before adopting the magistrate judge's amended findings and recommendations and granting the § 2241 petition.
- Immediate release was ordered on the conditions in place before the June 2026 detention, with additional restrictions requiring a future hearing determination of necessity.
- Any government effort to re-detain Torres Ortiz requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The order did not decide detention issues that could arise after an executable final removal order and notice of that order.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the existence of a post-deprivation bond proceeding from the broader due process question presented by detention imposed without prior notice or a pre-deprivation hearing. The court treated unreasonable delay in supplying § 1226(a) protections as grounds for habeas relief, notwithstanding Respondents' reliance on the immigration judge's bond denial.
Its remedy combines release with procedural protections rather than resolving every possible basis for future detention. The notice, neutral-arbiter, bond-eligibility, property-return, and compliance requirements define the relief granted, while the express reservation concerning an executable final removal order identifies an issue the court did not decide.