A federal judge criticized the government’s actions in an immigration-related case on Tuesday, after learning a hearing was scheduled for a man’s possible deportation just one day after he challenged his detention in court.

“This type of bad faith conduct is inimical to our system of justice, and is conduct this Court will generally not abide,” wrote U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez in an Oct. 14 order.

Due to federal rules governing immigration cases, the filings in Jesus Morales Lopez’s case are shielded from public view. Based on the court’s docket, Morales Lopez filed a petition on Oct. 1 for “habeas corpus,” which is a longstanding legal tool to challenge one’s confinement.

The next day, the government scheduled a hearing for Oct. 15, during which Morales Lopez could potentially be ordered removed from Colorado and the country. His attorney sought a temporary restraining order so that Martínez could adjudicate the habeas case first.

Although Martínez noted that Morales Lopez waited eight days to seek his intervention after learning of the hearing, he was more critical of the government for acting so soon after Morales Lopez challenged his continued detention.

“As an initial matter, the Court notes that it is very troubled by the fact that Morales Lopez’s Individual Hearing was set so quickly after he initiated this habeas action,” wrote Martínez, a Barack Obama appointee. “The abrupt timing of this scheduling strongly suggests to the Court that it was taken by Respondents in retaliation of Morales Lopez pursuing a judicial proceeding.”

However, Martínez declined to intervene, as Morales Lopez’s detention was a separate issue from the forthcoming hearing. Martínez also observed Morales Lopez could seek to postpone the hearing in immigration court if he needed more time to prepare.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office, which is defending against Morales Lopez’s habeas petition, did not immediately respond to a question about Martínez’s characterization of the government’s actions.

The case is Morales Lopez v. Baltazar.