Guedez v. Mullin et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CARLOS GUEDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN and TODD
BLANCHE,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-26-1130-PRW
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before this Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1).
This case is one of many habeas petitions filed by an alien detainee challenging the legal
basis for their detention. The Petition alleges three grounds for relief. The first ground
alleges a violation of §§ 236 and 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because
the ICE officers who arrested Petitioner “did not tell [him] there was a warrant for [his]
arrest…nor was [he] served with a copy of the warrant.” The second ground alleges a
violation of 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) because Petitioner “was not notified of the reasons for
revocation [of release] nor was [he] afforded an initial informal interview [to] respond to
the reasons for revocation.” Ground three requests a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §
1226, which this Court construes to refer to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 due to Petitioner’s pro se
status. On July 29, 2026, Magistrate 	Judge Amanda L. Maxfield 	issued a Report and
Recommendation 	(Dkt. 13) recommending that the Court grant the Petition in part and
order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within seven
days. Magistrate Judge Maxfield determined that Petitioner is entitled to an individualized
Case 5:26-cv-01130-PRW Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 6

2
bond hearing under the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Quiroz v. Mullin,1 which held that §
1226(a) provides aliens arrested within the interior of the United States a right to such a
hearing. Magistrate 	Judge Maxfield also determined that Petitioner’s 	remaining 	claims
were without merit. On August 4, 2026, Respondents filed Objections (Dkt. 15) to the
Report, arguing that the Petition should be denied as moot because Petitioner received a
bond hearing two days after the Report was issued. Respondents did not object to the
Magistrate 	Judge’s 	determination 	that 	Petitioner 	was 	not 	required 	to 	exhaust 	his
administrative 	remedies 	before 	filing 	his 	Petition, 	and 	have 	therefore 	waived 	the
exhaustion issue initially raised in their Response (Dkt. 9) to the Petition.2
The Court holds that Petitioner’s § 1226 claim is moot. Respondents have produced
evidence that Petitioner was scheduled for a custody redetermination 	proceeding on July
31, 2026, but that Petitioner 	withdrew the request for the hearing.3 Petitioner 	has not
explained the reason for the withdrawn request, and in any event, was scheduled for another
individualized 	hearing on August 6, 2026.4 Although Petitioner remains in immigration
custody, he has not contested the adequacy of those proceedings.
Petitioner’s other claims for relief are without merit. Petitioner’s first ground alleges
violations of §§ 236 and 287 of the INA. Section 236 of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. §
1226, states that an “alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the
1 Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1237 (10th Cir. 2026).
2 See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
3 Order of Immigration Judge (Dkt. 15-3).
4 Notice of Internet-Based Hr’g (Dkt. 15-4).
Case 5:26-cv-01130-PRW Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 6

3
alien is to be removed from the United States” “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney
General.” Section 287 of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1357, provides that certain persons
in the Department of Justice shall have the power to make warrantless arrests of aliens in
certain circumstances. Accordingly, the first question is whether Petitioner can establish
that he is not being detained in immigration 	custody pursuant to a valid arrest warrant
issued by the Attorney General. Respondents produced a copy of an arrest warrant served
and signed by Petitioner on May 2, 2026, by a deportation officer.5 Although Petitioner
contends he was not aware of these documents until reading the Response, the Magistrate
Judge found Respondents’ evidence “more compelling as to this issue,”6 and the Court sees
no reason to reject that finding. Petitioner points to a Department of Homeland Security
record stating that he had no “wants or warrants” at the time he was taken into immigration
custody, but it is unclear which document is accurate as of the time of Plaintiff’s arrest
because both are dated May 2, 2026.7 In any event, there is no evidence the arrest warrant
was fraudulent or invalid. The first ground is therefore without merit.
Petitioner’s second ground alleges violations of 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l). That regulation
provides that an alien “who has been released under an order of supervision or other
conditions of release who violates the conditions of release may be returned to custody,”
and upon revocation, must be “notified of the reasons for the revocation of his or her release
or parole.” Additionally, “[t]he alien will be afforded an initial informal interview promptly
5 Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Dkt. 9-3).
6 R&R (Dkt. 13), at 7.
7 Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Dkt. 9-3); R. of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Dkt. 9-2).
Case 5:26-cv-01130-PRW Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 6

4
after his or her return to…custody to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the
reasons for revocation stated in the notification.” In deportation and administrative 	cases,
the harmless 	error standard 	applies,8 	and “it is Petitioner’s 	burden to show that the
government’s failure to abide by its own regulations prejudiced him.”9
First, 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 applies by its own terms only to aliens who have been
“ordered removed.”10 A review of Petitioner’s EOIR Case Information page does not show
a decision by an Immigration Judge ordering Petitioner to be removed.11 Even if Petitioner
is subject to a removal order, however, Petitioner has not shown that any failure to provide
the procedures required by § 241.4(l) prejudiced him. Section 241.4(l) provides that an
alien’s release may be revoked when “[i]t is appropriate to enforce a removal order or to
commence removal proceedings against [him].” Petitioner’s Notice to Appear states that
he was admitted to the United States “as a B2 Visitor for Pleasure with authorization to
remain…[until] 	September 1, 2020,” and that Petitioner remained in the United States
beyond September 1, 2020, without authorization.12 	Petitioner 	has attached documents
8 Bahadorani v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1091-PRW, 2025 WL 3048932, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Oct.
31, 2025) (citing Nazaraghaie v. I.N.S., 102 F.3d 460, 465 (10th Cir. 1996) (citations
omitted); WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 870 F.3d 1222, 1238-39
(10th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted)).
9 Id. (citing Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding that
errors 	in 	administrative 	proceedings 	do 	not 	call 	for 	reversal 	without 	plaintiffs
demonstrating that such errors produced prejudice)).
10 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(a)(1)-(4).
11 Exec. Off. for Immigr. Rev., Automated Case Info.: Case Info. for A-218-137-613, U.S.
Dep’t of Just., https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-case-information 	(last visited 	Oct. 13,
2026).
12 Notice to Appear (Dkt. 16-1), at 1.
Case 5:26-cv-01130-PRW Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 6

5
showing that he was granted a request for an extension of temporary stay from September
2, 2020 to December 1, 2020,13 and then granted temporary protective status to remain in
the United States until September 10, 2025.14 But a later Department of Homeland Security
document states that Petitioner’s temporary protective status was terminated on November
20, 2025,15 and there is no record to show that Petitioner was granted permission to stay in
the 	United 	States 	beyond 	that 	date. Additionally, 	Petitioner 	was 	scheduled 	for 	an
individualized hearing before an Immigration Judge on August 6, 2026, where Petitioner
may have been able to show that he was entitled 	to remain 	in the United States.16
Accordingly, any error under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) was harmless.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Respondents’ objections de
novo,17 the Court agrees with some, but not all of the Report and Recommendation’s
reasoning 	and 	conclusions. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation (Dkt. 9) IN PART. The Petition (Dkt. 1) is DENIED. All other pending
motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
13 Form I-797C, Notice of Action (Dkt. 10), at 17-18.
14 Form I-797A, Notice of Action (Dkt. 10), at 20.
15 R. of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Dkt. 9-2), at 3.
16 Notice of Internet-Based Hr’g (Dkt. 15-4).
17 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring a district judge to “make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection 	is made” but otherwise permitting 	a district judge to review the report and
recommendations under any standard it deems appropriate).
Case 5:26-cv-01130-PRW Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of October 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-01130-PRW Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 6