OLEKSII TIUTIUNNYK v. WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center, MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting Director Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department Of Homeland Security; AND PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

OLEKSII TIUTIUNNYK, Petitioner, v. Civ. No. 26-0594-KG-GJF WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center, MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting Director Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department Of Homeland Security; AND PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, Respondents,1

ORDER TO ANSWER This matter is before the Court on the Letter-Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1) (Letter-Petition). Petitioner is an immigration detainee at the Otero County Processing Center and is proceeding pro se. He has been in the United States since April 15, 2023, and he was detained on August 30, 2025. The Letter-Petition does not appear on a Section 2241 form, and while the claims are somewhat difficult to discern, the Court finds Respondents should file an answer. Petitioner appears to allege he was in the United States legally on a visa, and there is no valid basis for his arrest or detention. It is not clear that The pro se Letter-Petition does not appear to name Respondents, but the Court will add the above- mentioned parties as Respondents. See Torres-Torres v. Miller, 2020 WL 4430519 (D.N.M. July 31, 2020) (discussing the respondents in an immigration habeas case); 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).

Petitioner received an adequate bond hearing after his arrest. The Letter-Petition states that immigration authorities have not informed Petitioner why he is detained.

The Clerk’s Office has electronically served Respondents - including the Respondents added in this Order - by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. (Doc. 2). The Court will set a briefing schedule as set forth below. The Court also notes that Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee for this action. Petitioner must either prepay fee or, alternatively, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order.

IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The United States Attorney’s Office must answer the Petition within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order.

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

3. Petitioner shall pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order.

4. The Clerk’s Office shall update CM/ECF to include the Respondents added by this Order.

/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.