Kumar v. Baltazar et al
| Sunil Kumar |
| Warden Juan Baltazar, David J Venturella, Markwayne Mullin and Todd Blanche |
| 1:2026cv04113 |
| September 2, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Regina M. Rodriguez |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 in - Habeas Corpus: INS |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 24, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 FINAL JUDGMENT re: #10 Order, entered by Clerk on 9/24/2026. (kmyha) |
| Filing 11 STATUS REPORT by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David J Venturella. (Brown, Logan) |
Filing 10
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. #1 ) is GRANTED; 2. Respondents shall IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner on his own recognizance, along with all his personal belongings, without onerous conditions of release, including, without limitation, GPS monitoring, mandatory reporting, or other restrictions on his movement. Respondents shall facilitate Petitioner's transportation from the detention facility by providing all necessary identity and travel documents to return to his primary address; 3. Respondents are ENJOINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre- deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified pursuant to 8 U.S.C 1226(a). At any such bond hearing, Respondents shall bear the burden of proof, and Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present. This injunction shall remain in effect until such time as this Court, or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, vacates this Order; 4. During such periods of time as Petitioner remains in Respondents' custody, Respondents shall continue to be ENJOINED from removing, transferring, or causing the removal or transfer of Petitioner from the District of Colorado until such time as this Court, or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, vacates this Order; and 5. On or before September 25, 2026, Respondents shall file a status report certifying compliance with this Order. SO ORDERED by Judge Regina M. Rodriguez on 9/18/2026. (ccuen, )
|
| Filing 9 RESPONSE to 4 Minute Order,,,,, by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David J Venturella. (Brown, Logan) |
|
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER: On 9/14/2026, this case was reassigned to the undersigned, ECF No. 7 . Before the Court is Petitioner's habeas petition, ECF No. #1 . Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), and in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, Respondents SHALL NOT REMOVE Petitioner from the District of Colorado unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order. See also Vizguerra-Ramirez v. Choate, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-881, D. Colo., ECF No. 11 at 45 (collecting cases); F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603 (1966); Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. New York Shipping Assn, 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992). SO ORDERED by Judge Regina M. Rodriguez on 9/15/2026. Text Only Entry (rmrja)
|
| Filing 7 CASE REASSIGNED Pursuant to #6 Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. Case randomly reassigned to Judge Regina M. Rodriguez and drawn to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. All parties do not consent. All future pleadings should be designated as 26-cv-04113-RMR. (Text Only Entry) (ccuen, ) |
| Filing 6 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Respondents Juan Baltazar, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David J Venturella All parties do not consent.. (Brown, Logan) |
| Filing 5 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 4 Minute Order,,,,, by Petitioner Sunil Kumar. (Adhikari, Laxman) |
|
Filing 4
MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 09/04/2026. This matter is before the court on Petitioner Junil Kumar's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. #1 ). Petitioner shall, by overnight mail and email, serve Respondents with a copy of the Petition and this Order on or before September 8, 2026. Petitioner shall file proof of service. Within seven days of service, respondents shall show cause why the #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 2243 ("The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed."). In doing so, Respondents are asked to address whether the issues presented here are materially different from the issues the Tenth Circuit has resolved in its prior ruling in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th (10th Cir. 2026). Petitioner may file a reply within seven days of Respondents filing their response. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a completed Magistrate Judge consent form (ECF No. #3 ) no less than seven days from the date of this Order. Text Only Entry (sjeff)
|
| Filing 3 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (eguth, ) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Text Only Entry (eguth, ) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11257396)Attorney Laxman Adhikari added to party Sunil Kumar(pty:pet), filed by Sunil Kumar. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit and Declaration)(Adhikari, Laxman) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
