Gomez Rodas v. Joe Corley Processing Center
| Nilson Javier Gomez Rodas |
| Joe Corley Processing Center |
| 4:2026cv02472 |
| March 27, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Charles Eskridge |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 18, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Nilson Javier Gomez Rodas re: #8 Order of Dismissal, filed. An updated address could not be found. (bnb6) |
| Filing 9 Mail Returned Undeliverable - No longer at facility - as to Nilson Javier Gomez Rodas re: #6 Order to Show Cause, filed. (bow4) Modified on 5/14/2026 (bow4). |
Filing 8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Case terminated on 05/04/2026. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (jmg4)
|
| Filing 7 ADVISORY by Joe Corley Processing Center, filed. (Ren, Shawn) |
| NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Shawn David Ren on behalf of Joe Corley Processing Center, filed. (Ren, Shawn) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Served electronically on USAO per MOU.) Show Cause Response due by 5/1/2026 (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (jmg4)
|
| Filing 5 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Nilson Javier Gomez Rodas re: #4 Order,, filed. (dar1) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER re: #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Served electronically on USAO per MOU.). Petitioner Nilson Javier Gomez Rodas may, within twenty days from entry of this Order, make a further filing with additional authorities or distinguishing facts not considered in the rulings cited above on prior dismissals. Absent such showing, the petition will be denied and this action dismissed with entry of final judgment. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (jmg4)
|
| Filing 3 Clerk's Notice of Redaction Responsibilities and Privacy Protection. Parties notified, filed. (SDTX_CMECF_AutoDocket, ) |
| Filing 2 CLERKS NOTICE Regarding Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. Parties notified, filed. (bow4) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5) filed by Nilson Javier Gomez Rodas. (bow4) |
| Referral Judge Selected: Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan randomly selected to receive referrals. The selected Magistrate Judge is not assigned to this case until a District Judge refers the case or a motion or the parties consent to jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Once a referral has been made, the name of the referral judge will appear at the top of the docket sheet. (bow4) |
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 Texas Southern 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
| Search for this case: Gomez Rodas v. Joe Corley Processing Center | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Nilson Javier Gomez Rodas | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Joe Corley Processing Center | |
| Represented By: | Shawn David Ren |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
