Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06010

#1

Jan 05, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5672275.), filed by Luis Giovanny Reynoso Ortega. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

Jan 06, 2026

Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. (CGJ)

Jan 06, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Meredith A. Vacca. Notification to Chambers of on-line civil case opening. (CGJ)

#2

Jan 08, 2026

TEXT ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Counsel filed the instant petition on January 5, 2026. Although the petition lists Luis Giovanny Reynoso Ortega as the Petitioner, the substance of the petition refers to Mingjian Hu. See, e.g., ECF No. 1, Paragraph 1 ("Mingjian Hu ('Mr. Hu') is a citizen of China with a pending I-589 application...."). Incidentally, Mr. Hu's petition is already before this Court in case number 25-CV-6790, and is virtually identical to the petition here. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint shall state the names of all the parties. See also Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (providing the Fed. R. Civ. P. apply to habeas petitions to the extent they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions). "The intention of this rule is to apprise parties of who their opponents are and to protect the public's legitimate interest in knowing the facts at issue in court proceedings." Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359, 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Because the Court cannot readily determine who the Petitioner actually is in the instant case, the petition [ECF No. 1.] is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days from the date of this order. If Petitioner does not file an amended complaint by the deadline set forth above, petition will remain dismissed and the Clerk of Court shall close this case without further order. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 01/08/2026. (JCL)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 01/08/2026)

#3

Jan 08, 2026

AMENDED COMPLAINT Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney, filed by Luis Giovanny Reynoso Ortega.(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 01/08/2026)

#4

Jan 12, 2026

TEXT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Petitioner Luis Giovanny Renoso Ortega, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 8, 2026, while being held as a civil immigration detainee at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. ECF No. 3. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443-47 (2004). He seeks a writ of habeas corpus requiring - among other things - that Respondents release him or provide him with an expedited bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 3. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that "[a] court entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted." In light of the Court's prior orders on this issue, including its decision in Da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-CV-6532-MAV, 2025 WL 3280575, (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), Respondents are hereby ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of this order why the Petitioner's requested relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should not be granted, including through citations to supporting authority and applicable sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, supplemented as possible by copies of the Notice to Appear served on Petitioner, the warrant to arrest Petitioner, any other relevant exhibits helpful to resolution of this Petition, and a supporting declaration as necessary; and it is further, ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forthwith serve a copy of the Petition, ECF No. 3, together with a copy of this Order, electronically via a Notice of Electronic Filing to the United States Attorney's Office, Western District of New York at USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall have 7 days after service of Respondents' return to file a written response. Following receipt of the parties' papers, the Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. In that regard, the Court observes that 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that "[u]nless the application for the writ and the return present only issues of law, the person to whom the writ is directed shall be required to produce at the hearing the body of the person detained," as "the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts." Accordingly, to facilitate the expeditious resolution of this matter, it is further ORDERED that Respondents refrain from transferring Petitioner out of the United States until after the Court determines whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 01/12/2026. (JCL)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 01/12/2026)

Jan 13, 2026

Clerk emailed 3 Petition to USANYW-ImmigrationHabeas@usdoj.gov. (RE)

#5

Jan 14, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/14/2026)

#6

Jan 14, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 4 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/14/2026)

#7

Jan 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On January 8, 2026, Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, inter alia, that his detention is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as he has not been afforded an individualized bond hearing by an Immigration Judge. ECF No. 3. The Court ordered that Respondents show cause within 14 days as to why the petition should not be granted. ECF No. 4. Respondents filed a response on January 14, 2026 conceding that this case shared a common question of law with the Court's decision in Da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-CV-6532-MAV, 2025 WL 3280575 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), and that the Court's resolution of the question in Da Cunha controlled the results in the instant case should the Court adhere to its prior reasoning. ECF No. 6. In Da Cunha, the Court considered whether a petitioner who had been present in the country for a period of years and was not actively seeking lawful entry through inspection by an immigration officer was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Court found that the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was therefore entitled to an initial bond hearing under existing federal regulations. Da Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575, at *7. As noted, Respondents concede that the facts of this case squarely implicate a legal issue that this Court has ruled on previously. The Court finds that its reasoning in Da Cunha applies to the instant matter, and that the statutory basis for Petitioner's detention is 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED to the extent that Respondents are hereby ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an initial bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Petitioner asks the Court to order that at the bond hearing, the government bear the burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk, and the Immigration Judge be required to consider non-bond alternatives to detention and Petitioner's ability to pay. ECF No. 3 at 13. However, Petitioner provides no argument and cites no facts or legal authority supporting these requests. See, e.g., O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, No. 5:22-CV-948 (MAD/TWD), 2025 WL 1519411, at *27 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2025) (quoting Sioson v. Knights of Columbus, 303 F.3d 458, 460 (2d Cir. 2002)) ("It is 'simply not [the Court's] job, at least in a counseled case[,]' to develop arguments on [Petitioner]'s behalf."). Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on this issue, which would require a case specific analysis under the factors identified in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Mahmodi et al v Marich et al, No. 25-CV-6762-MAV, 2026 WL 113473, at *4-9 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2026). Instead, the Court directs that the initial bond hearing shall be provided "as established by existing federal regulations." Da Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575, at *7 (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)).It is further ORDERED that if such bond hearing is not conducted within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Petitioner shall be released from custody; and it is further ORDERED that Respondents shall file a status report no later than February 6, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has either been granted a bond hearing within ten (10) days or released from custody in compliance with this Order; and it is further ORDERED that because the instant Order resolves this matter, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted, and the restriction on Petitioner's transfer outside of the United States is hereby lifted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 1/20/2026. (JCL)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#8

Jan 20, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Luis Giovanny Reynoso Ortega. Signed by Mary C. Loewenguth, Clerk of Court on 1/20/26. (RE) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#9

Jan 29, 2026

Letter filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#10

Feb 02, 2026

MOTION to Enforce Judgment by Luis Giovanny Reynoso Ortega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Halinka Zolcik, # 2 Exhibit Ex B - Leaked e-mail from Chief Immigration Judge, # 3 Exhibit C - Bond Order denying bond)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#11

Feb 03, 2026

TEXT SCHEDULING ORDER: Respondents' response to the motion to enforce is due on or before February 17, 2026. The Court is in receipt of the audio recording file from the bond hearing before the Immigration Judge; the Court will notify Respondents if it determines that a written transcript is required. Petitioner's Reply is due February 24, 2026. Upon review of the papers, the Court will determine if oral argument is necessary and, if so, will inform the parties of the date and time. Otherwise, the matter will be deemed submitted and decided on the papers. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 02/03/2026. (JCL) (Entered: 02/03/2026)