# Officer

> District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · September 4, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11435795

## Case

- **Full name:** Damion Orlando Officer v. United States District Court, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** September 4, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11435795

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DAMION ORLANDO )
OFFICER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1272-R
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT )
COURT, et al., )
)
Respondents.1 )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Damion Orlando Officer, a noncitizen proceeding pro se,2
seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1.3 United States
District Judge David L. Russell referred the case to the undersigned

1 Respondents entered an appearance on behalf of United States Attorney
General Todd Blanche and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Markwayne Mullin. Doc. 7. Chris Gantt is Warden of the Cimarron
Correctional Facility, where the Government is housing Petitioner.

2 This Report and Recommendation “uses the term ‘noncitizen’ as
equivalent to the statutory term ‘alien.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578
n.2 (2020) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)). Because Petitioner is proceeding pro
se, the Court liberally construes his arguments. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But it is not “the proper function of the district
court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.” Id.

3 Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 3. The Government
responded, Doc. 8, and Petitioner filed a reply, Doc. 9. So, the matter is at issue.

For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends the Court grant
Petitioner’s habeas petition in part and order Respondents to provide
Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within ten days or else release
Petitioner.

I. Factual background and procedural history.

Petitioner is a citizen of Jamaica who entered the United States on June
9, 2024, on a B-2 visa, with authorization to remain until December 8, 2024.
Doc. 8, Ex. 1. On February 5, 2026, officials with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) arrested Petitioner for overstaying his visa and “placed [him]
in immigration custody pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1).” Doc. 8, at 3. DHS
issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear (NTA) alleging he was subject to removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).4

Id. (citing Ex. 1, at 1).

4 An NTA acts as “a charging document” informing the noncitizen of “the
specific charges against him and outlin[ing] their legal and factual basis.”
Dragomirescu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 44 F.4th 1351, 1354 (11th Cir. 2022) (citing 8
U.S.C. § 1229a).

2
On March 20, 2026, Petitioner filed an application for asylum. Id. On
July 23, 2026, an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered his removal; Petitioner has

appealed that ruling and that appeal remains pending.5
II. Petitioner’s claims.
Petitioner argues that Respondents violated: (1) his Fifth Amendment
procedural due process rights; (2) the INA when they mandatorily detained

him under § 1225; (3) the INA and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by
failing to provide a bond hearing and for arresting him without a warrant; and
(4) the APA. Doc. 1, at 7-8. He seeks his immediate release, or, alternatively, a
bond hearing. Id. at 8.

III. Standard of review.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus “is an attack by a person in
custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of
the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 484 (1973). Habeas corpus relief is warranted only if the petitioner “is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “Challenges to immigration detention are

5 See https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited Sep. 3,
2026).

3
properly brought directly through habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d
1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88

(2001)).
IV. Discussion.

A. 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs Petitioner’s detention and entitles
him to a bond hearing.

Respondents state DHS placed Petitioner in immigration custody under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1). Doc. 8, at 3. They argue that, because Petitioner has not
requested a custody redetermination hearing, an IJ has not denied him one
and his claims are “not ripe for resolution.” Id. at 4.6 The undersigned
disagrees.
Federal regulations permit a noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), to request a bond hearing before an IJ at any time prior to the entry
of a final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1) (“After an initial custody
determination . . . the respondent may, at any time before an order under 8

6 Any request by Petitioner would have been futile. On September 5, 2025,
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) issued a precedent decision, binding
on all immigration judges, holding that an immigration judge has no authority
to consider bond requests for any person who entered the United States
without admission. See Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA
2025). The BIA determined that such individuals are subject to detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and are therefore ineligible to be released on
bond. Id.
4
CFR part 240 becomes final, request amelioration of the conditions under
which he or she may be released.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (providing framework

for requesting a bond determination). However, they are not required to
request a bond hearing before pursuing § 2241 habeas corpus relief. See, e.g.,
Salvador F.-G. v. Noem, 2025 WL 1669356, at *6 (N.D. Okla. June 12, 2025)
(“[Section] 1226 contains no clear rule that requires exhaustion of

administrative remedies.”) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226). And while “exhaustion of
available administrative remedies is a prerequisite for § 2241 habeas relief” in
general, neither the statutory language of § 1226 nor the habeas statute
“expressly contain such a requirement.” Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203

(10th Cir. 2010). For these reasons, the Court should reject Respondents’
argument.
The Court should grant the petition in part and order Respondents to
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within ten days, or else

release Petitioner. See Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1251 n.13
(10th Cir. 2026) (directing district court to order the government to provide the
petitioner a bond hearing within seven days “[b]ecause [the petitioner] can
properly be subject to detention under § 1226(a).”); see also Colin v. Holt, No.

CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025)
(“Petitioner has not received a bond hearing and Respondents raise no
5
objection challenging their obligations to provide bond hearings for noncitizens
that are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).”).

B. The Court should decline to address Petitioner’s remaining
claims.

Given the undersigned’s recommendation to grant Petitioner a bond
hearing, the Court should decline to address the merits of Petitioner’s
remaining claims for relief. The Court can grant him relief under § 1226(a).
See Colin, 2025 WL 3645176, at *6 n.3 (“Because the Court grants the relief
the Petitioner requests based on the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the
Court declines to decide the merits of Petitioner’s due process claim.”); see also
Ramos Perez v. Grant, No. CIV-26-721-D, 2026 WL 2033144, at *2 n.2 (W.D.
Okla. July 14, 2026) (declining to address the petitioner’s remaining claims

after ordering a bond hearing).
V. Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
grant Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition in part and order

Respondents to provide him with an individualized bond hearing in
front of a neutral IJ within ten days or otherwise release Petitioner.
The undersigned also recommends that the Court order Respondents to certify
compliance with the Court’s order by filing a status report within ten business

6
days of the Court’s order, and to promptly provide a copy of this order to counsel
for the Warden of the Cimarron Correctional Facility.

The undersigned advises the parties of their right to file an objection to
this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by September
11, 2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.7 The undersigned further advises the parties that failure to

make timely objections to this Report and Recommendation waives the right
to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore
v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This Report and
Recommendation disposes of the issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate

Judge in the captioned matter.

7 Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has
reduced the typical objection time to this Report and Recommendation. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (noting that
rule establishing 14-day response time “does not extend to habeas corpus
petitions, which are covered by the specific rules relating to proceedings under
Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.”); see also Whitmore v. Parker, 484 F. App’x
227, 231, 231 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases may be
applied discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241” and that “while the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in habeas proceedings, they
need not be in every instance–particularly where strict application would
undermine the habeas review process”).

7
ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2026.

ga Ler
SUZANNE MITCHELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11435795. Public record. Not legal advice.