Cazola Malagon v. Blanche et al
| Javier Eduardo Cazola Malagon |
| Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella and Juan Baltazar |
| 1:2026cv04292 |
| September 14, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| S Kato Crews |
| 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 14, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
DISREGARD ENTRY - ENTERED IN WRONG CASE ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner's #1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In their Response, Respondents state that they "are not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case." Dkt. 6 , pp.12. Where, as here, "a party files a response to a motion but does not address all arguments which the motion raises, the party has effectively conceded the arguments which it does not address. Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-04014-CNS, 2026 WL 91470, at *5 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026) (quoting Series 17-03-615 v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 3d 904, 935 (D. Kan. 2025)); see also C1.G ex rel C.G. v. Siegfried, 38 F.4th 1270, 1282 (10th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. Furthermore, because Respondents have offered no lawful bases for his detention, particularly in response to Petitioner's Due Process arguments, the Court concludes Petitioner is entitled to immediate release. Vargas Cardenas v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC, 2026 WL 886340, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2026). Therefore, Respondents SHALL immediately release Petitioner and SHALL FILE a status report within TWO DAYS of this Order certifying compliance.SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 9/14/2026. Text Only Entry (skclc1) Modified on 9/14/2026 (cpear, ).
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER: Upon review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Javier Eduardo Cazola Malagon, it is ORDERED that Petitioner shall SERVE Respondents, see F.R.C.P. 4(i)(1) & (2), with a copy of the Petition and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail and by overnight certified mail, on or before September 18, 2026. Petitioner shall promptly file proof of such service on the docket, and counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter their notices of appearance.Based upon a preliminary review of the Petition, it appears to be well-founded. Consequently, within five days of service, Respondents shall RESPOND to the Petition and SHOW CAUSE why it should not be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Pursuant to the All Writs Act, and in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, Respondents SHALL NOT REMOVE Petitioner from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order.SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 9/14/2026. Text Only Entry (skclc1)
|
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Judge S. Kato Crews and drawn to Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella. Text Only Entry. (alxu, ) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11279918)Attorney Deliane Quiles added to party Javier Eduardo Cazola Malagon(pty:pet), filed by Javier Eduardo Cazola Malagon. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Summons, #11 Summons, #12 Summons, #13 Summons, #14 Summons)(Quiles, Deliane) |
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.
