Sias Mendoza v. Lyons et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ELIEZER SIAS MENDOZA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-333-D
)
TODD M. LYONS, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Doc.
No. 1]. Petitioner alleges that he legally entered the United States on a visitors’ visa in
September 2021, and has continually resided in the United States since. Petitioner was
detained on January 1, 2026, and he has been in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) since that time. He is currently housed at the Diamondback
Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma.
This Court has recently addressed an increase of habeas petitioners asserting that
their detention by ICE violates the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et
seq. (INA). Those petitioners were being detained pursuant to the mandatory detention
provision contained in § 1225(b)(2)(A), and the petitioners argued their detention should
instead be governed by § 1226(a), which provides the noncitizen with the opportunity for
a bond hearing. See Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03094-CNS, 2025 WL 2996643,
at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025) (citation omitted).
Case 5:26-cv-00333-D Document 13 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
However, in this case, the parties agree that Petitioner is being detained under
§ 1226(a) and that Petitioner is eligible for a bond hearing. [Doc. No. 12, at 1]. On March
16, 2026, counsel for Respondents emailed Petitioner’s counsel to alert him that “if
[Petitioner’s counsel] filed a bond motion in immigration court, an individualized bond
hearing will be set under INA [§] 236,” and “[t]he only reason it has not been set is because
[Petitioner] has not requested it.” [Doc. No. 12-4, at 2]. In a follow-up email, Respondents’
counsel again informed Petitioner’s counsel that if a bond hearing were requested in
immigration court, a bond hearing would be scheduled. Id. at 1. Petitioner’s counsel
responded: “Yes mom… bond will be forthcoming.”1 Id.
Due to Petitioner’s failure to file a reply, the Court is not aware of whether Petitioner
has since filed a request with the immigration court for a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
However, because the parties agree that Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) and is
entitled to a bond hearing should Petitioner request one, the Court finds that Petitioner has
not shown that his detention violates the INA or that he is otherwise entitled to habeas relief
at this time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED. A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 th day of April, 2026.
1 The Court cautions Petitioner’s counsel that this Court expects all attorneys practicing in this
district to be respectful toward opposing counsel.
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00333-D Document 13 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 2