Diego Alexander Gomez Garcia v. Warden, Otero County Processing Center; Mary De...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO DIEGO ALEXANDER GOMEZ GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Civ. No. 26-0236-KG-KK WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Officer Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TAE D. JOHNSON, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department Of Homeland Security, Respondents.1 ORDER TO ANSWER AND SHOW CAUSE This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Diego Alexander Gomez Garcia’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1) (Petition). Petitioner is detained at the Otero County Processing Center. He entered the United States in 2022 and has been living and working here since that time. (Doc. 1) at 3. Petitioner was taken into immigration custody on December 2, 2025. Id. at 4. The Petition challenges his continued detention and, in particular, the Immigration Court’s determination that it lacks jurisdiction to conduct a bond hearing.

Accepting the facts as true, Petitioner has raised a colorable claim for relief that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225. See Garcia Sanchez v. Noem, et al., 25-cv-1219 KG/JFR (concluding petitioner was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather The pro se Petition names, inter alia, the Warden as a party Respondent. The Court adds the above- mentioned parties as additional Respondents in this case. See Lowmaster v. Dir., Bureau of Prisons, 2024 WL 5135970, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2024) (“the Court notes that it routinely substitutes the” proper parties as “respondent in habeas cases”); Danderson v. Page, 2024 WL 3913051, at *2 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024) (substituting the proper party respondent in a habeas case). than 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and ordering Respondents to provide a bond hearing); Pu Sacvin v. De Anda- Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.) (same); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL 45288, at *2 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.) (same). The Clerk’s Office has electronically served Respondents by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. (Doc. 2). The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) shall answer the Petition within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order and show cause, if any, why the requested relief should not be granted. Petitioner may file an optional reply within seven (7) business days after the answer brief is filed. If the USAO declines to timely respond, the Court may enter a separate order granting relief, including a bond hearing, in accordance with its prior rulings on this issue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The United States Attorney’s Office must answer the Petition within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order and show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.

2. If Petitioner wishes to file an optional reply, he must do so within seven (7) business days after the response is filed.

3. The Clerk’s Office shall update CM/ECF to reflect the additional Respondents set forth above.

/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales_______________ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE • Please note that this document has been electronically filed. To verify its authenticity, please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) accompanying this document. Electronically filed documents can be found on the Court’s PACER public access system.