legal-news

Luis Alonzo Calixtro v. Markwayne Mullin et al

26-cv-01797
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Luis Alonzo Calixtro filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Markwayne Mullin and other defendants, docket 26-cv-01797. Section 2241 petitions in the immigration context are typically used to challenge the lawfulness of detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement pending removal proceedings. The 'Full Consent' notation indicates all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction for the full case, including final disposition. The court is not identified in the available data.

No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.

Key Issues

  • • Lawfulness of immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
  • • Petitioner's right to release or bond hearing
  • • Magistrate judge jurisdiction by full consent of parties
  • • Government's authority to detain pending removal
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
info
Other April 20, 2026

5:26-cv-01797 Luis Alonzo Calixtro v. Markwayne Mullin et al

A federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was filed in the Western District of Oklahoma, with Luis Alonzo Calixtro challenging his immigration detention against Senator Markwayne Mullin and other named respondents. Both parties consented to full magistrate judge jurisdiction, meaning a magistrate — not an Article III district judge — will handle the case from start to finish. The 'Immigration 2241' designation signals Calixtro is contesting the lawfulness of his detention, not seeking review of a removal order itself.

description View filing open_in_new
Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

1 article
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

1 outlet · 1 article

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

2 hours, 4 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.