Duran v. Diamondback Correctional Facility

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSE RAFAEL PRADO DURAN,
Petitioner,
v.
DIAMONDBACK CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-2581-SLP
O R D E R
Petitioner, Victor Romero-Gutierrez, appearing pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. Before the Court is
Respondents’ Response to Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 6]. Respondents appear to
acknowledge that this matter is controlled by the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Santillan
Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1240 (10th Cir. 2026).1 Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS IN PART the Petition [Doc. No. 1] as to Petitioner’s statutory challenge to his
detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(a).2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED IN
PART. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a proper bond hearing ,
1 Respondents nonetheless state they do not intend to waive appellate review and they do not
concede that Santillan Quiroz was correctly decided.
2 Respondents also state that “[h]abeas is an extraordinary form of relief and the Petition should
be dismissed so that Petitioner may follow the proper administrative channels to obtain relief.”
Resp. [Doc. No. 6] at 2. Respondents’ argument is threadbare and doesn’t rely on any authority.
Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal of the Petition is not warranted.
Case 5:26-cv-02581-SLP Document 7 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
before an immigration judge, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the
date of this Order.3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a Notice of Compliance
on or before 5:00 p.m., on October 23, 2026. If Respondents fail to timely comply,
including a failure to timely file a Notice, Petitioner shall immediately be released from
custody. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2243.4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ counsel is directed to provide a
copy of this Order to the warden of the facility where Petitioner is currently detained.
A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2026.
3 Because the Court finds that habeas relief should be granted on Petitioner’s statutory claim, the
Court declines to address his remaining claims.
4 “In issuing a writ of habeas corpus, a federal court has the power and authority to dispose of
habeas corpus matters as law and justice require.” Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir.
1992) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243); Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is a remedy
for unlawful executive detention. The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.”);
see also Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 107 (2020) (“Habeas has
traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention.”).
Case 5:26-cv-02581-SLP Document 7 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2