District of Nevada • 2:25-cv-01366

#1

Jul 28, 2025

PROPOSED SUMMONS to be issued by Plaintiff Heriberto Herrera Torralba. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons)(Lui, T Laura) (Entered: 07/28/2025)

#2

Jul 28, 2025

NOTICE of Association of Counsel by T Laura Lui on behalf of Plaintiff Gaudencio Dominguez Castillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Lui, T Laura) (Entered: 07/28/2025)

#3

Jul 28, 2025

NOTICE of Association of Counsel by T Laura Lui on behalf of Plaintiff Heriberto Herrera Torralba. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Lui, T Laura) (Entered: 07/28/2025)

Jul 28, 2025

Case randomly assigned to Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts. (RJDG)

#4

Jul 29, 2025

Motion Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition

#5

Jul 30, 2025

Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus

#6

Jul 30, 2025

Summons Issued as to USA

Jul 30, 2025

Assign Judges in Civil Case

#7

Jul 31, 2025

Order on Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice

#8

Jul 31, 2025

Proposed Summons to be issued

#9

Jul 31, 2025

Summons Issued as to USA

#10

Aug 01, 2025

Order

#11

Aug 06, 2025

Supplement

#12

Aug 07, 2025

Notice Appearance of Counsel

#13

Aug 07, 2025

Motion Extend/Shorten Time

#14

Aug 07, 2025

Response

#15

Aug 08, 2025

ORDER. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to the Petition (ECF No. 13 ) is GRANTED in part, nunc pro tunc, and DENIED in part. The deadline is extended to August 14, 2025. Pamela Bo ndi answer due 8/14/2025; Executive Office for Immigration Review answer due 8/14/2025; Jason Knight answer due 8/14/2025; John Mattos answer due 8/14/2025; Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security answer due 8/14/2025. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/8/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

#16

Aug 11, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/11/2025. The Court has further reviewed the 5 Petition and the limited record before it, and finds that, in addition to the arguments Petitioners raise regarding the applicability of respective federal statutes, Petitioners also appear to raise a due process challenge to DHS's invocation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) by filing a Form EOIR-43 to effect a unilateral and automatic stay of the Immigration Judges' ("IJs") orders authorizing the release of Petitioners on bond, pending DHS' appeal of the IJs orders to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). See e.g., Gunaydin v. Trump, No. 25-CV-01151 (JMB/DLM), 2025 WL 1459154 (D. Minn. May 21, 2025); Zavala v. Ridge, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2004).However, the Court finds the Petition is unclear as to whether Petitioners raise a facial or as applied challenge to DHS' invocation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2). The Court will therefore grant Petitioners leave to file an amended petition clarifying this issue on an expedited basis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ("The court should freely give leave [to amend pleadings] when justice so requires.")Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners may file an amended petition clarifying the nature of their challenge to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) in addition to any other arguments/claims on or before August 14, 2025.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 15 Order granting Respondents an extension of time to respond to the Petition is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because the Court grants Petitioners leave to amend, Respondents 13 Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED as moot.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents have until August 21, 2025 to respond to the Amended Petition.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 08/11/2025)

Aug 11, 2025

Minute Order

#17

Aug 13, 2025

Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus Amended

#18

Aug 19, 2025

Motion Extend/Shorten Time

#19

Aug 20, 2025

Response

#20

Aug 20, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/20/2025.Before the Court is Respondents' 18 Motion seeking a one-week extension of the deadline to respond to Petitioners' First Amended Petition, which Petitioners oppose. See ECF No. 19 . The Court finds there is good cause to grant a limited extension in light of Respondents' counsel's medical leave, but shorter than requested, given the issues raised by the Amended Petition appear to be purely legal such that minimal information from ICE is necessary to respond.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 18 Motion to Extend Time is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Respondents' response to the First Amended Petition is due on or before August 25, 2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 08/20/2025)

Aug 20, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Extend/Shorten Time

#21

Aug 25, 2025

Answer to Amended Habeas Petition

#22

Aug 26, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/26/2025. Pending before the Court is the 17 First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing on the Petition is set for 9/2/2025 at 08:30 AM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners' Reply in support of the Petition is due on or before August 29, 2025. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 08/26/2025)

#23

Aug 26, 2025

Motion Leave to Appear Telephonically

Aug 26, 2025

Minute Order Setting Hearing

#24

Aug 28, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/28/2025.Petitioners' Motion for Leave to Appear at the September 2, 2025 hearing telephonically is GRANTED. Instructions on joining remotely will be provided via email.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 08/28/2025)

Aug 28, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

#25

Aug 29, 2025

Reply

#26

Sep 02, 2025

Supplement

#27

Sep 02, 2025

Supplement

#28

Sep 02, 2025

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Crtrm Administrator: D Smith; Pla Counsel: Virgina Tomova and Summer Johnson; Def Counsel: Leonor Perretta, via video conferencing; Court Reporter: P Ganci; Time of Hearing: 8:39 - 9:20; 9:28 - 9:29; 9:38 - 10:14; Courtroom: 7C The Court makes preliminary remarks and hears from parties as to the 17 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Parties are instructed to supplement the record as soon as possible today. As stated on the record, the Court finds that DHS/ICE' invocation of the automatic stay via C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) of the Immigration Judges' custody redeterminations, which ordered Petitioners released on bond, violates the Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights of Petitioners, both facially and as applied. The automatic stay is invoked unilaterally to nullify the due process protections provided by a bond hearing, after a noncitizen detainee has successfully established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Government has failed to justify the detainees' continued detention. The stay is invoked unilaterally by an agency official with no discernable standard to guide the official's decision and no meaningful process to challenge or seek review of the decision. The constitutionality of the automatic stay is further not reviewable by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in resolving DHS/ICE' appeal of the IJs' bond order, and even if it were, the period of prolonged unlawful detention pending the BIA's resolution of the appeal cannot be remedied, therefore prudential administrative exhaustion before the BIA on this issue is futile. See Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining the futility exception to the prudential administrative exhaustion requirement carved for constitutional challenges to... [DHS] procedures.) (citations omitted).As such, the Court finds the factors under Matthews weigh heavily in favor of Petitioners because (1) the private interest affected is the fundamental liberty interest in being free from imprisonment; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through unjustified detention is extraordinarily high in that the regulation allows an agency official who has lost in an adversarial process to unilaterally and automatically override an immigration judge's decision with no meaningful procedural protections; (3) the Government's interest in continued detention is minimal where an immigration judge has already determined the detainee is neither a danger to society nor a flight risk, and alternative procedures exist to enable ICE/DHS to seek an emergency stay of the IJ's order pending appeal, which lessens the risk of erroneous deprivation and imposes no additional fiscal or administrative burden on the Government. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335 (1976); see also Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1206 (9th Cir. 2022) (collecting cases and applying the Matthews test to a constitutional challenge to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)).Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 17 Petition is GRANTED. Petitioners must be permitted to pay bond today by 4:00 p.m. PST and released from ICE custody by 5:00 p.m. PST consistent with the conditions of release ordered by the Immigration Judges. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ICE shall not attempt to transfer or remove these individuals from this District without the express permission of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any motion to stay this Order pending appeal must be filed by 1:00 p.m. today. Petitioners response is due by 3:30 p.m. today. A more detailed written order on the above ruling and the remaining statutory and constitutional issues raised by the Petition shall follow these Minutes of the Court. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 09/02/2025)

#29

Sep 02, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/2/2025.The Court has been notified by Petitioners' counsel that Petitioners Guadencio Dominguez Castillo and Jose Vazquez Jacobo have been unable to pay their bond through ICE's online payment system due to technical and other difficulties beyond their control, which cannot be resolved outside of business hours.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents shall release Petitioners from ICE custody IMMEDIATELY and without further delay.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners Dominguez and Vazquez shall satisfy the bond conditions of their release on or before September 5, 2025.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents' Counsel and the US Attorney's Office are directed to provide this Order to appropriate ICE officials to facilitate Petitioners IMMEDIATE release. Respondents' Counsel will file a notice of compliance tonight once the release has been effectuated. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 09/02/2025)

#30

Sep 02, 2025

Notice Other

Sep 02, 2025

Miscellaneous Hearing

Sep 02, 2025

Minute Order

#31

Sep 03, 2025

Notice Other

#32

Sep 05, 2025

Order

#33

Sep 09, 2025

Judgment

#34

Oct 08, 2025

Transcript

#35

Oct 13, 2025

Motion Attorney Fees

#36

Oct 28, 2025

Stipulation

#37

Oct 31, 2025

Order AND Order on Stipulation

#38

Nov 07, 2025

Notice Appeal

#40

Nov 19, 2025

USCA Order Time Schedule

Nov 19, 2025

Appeal Case Number Assigned

#41

Dec 04, 2025

Transcript Designation

#42

Dec 23, 2025

Stipulation

#43

Dec 31, 2025

Order AND Order on Stipulation

#44

Jan 26, 2026

Response

#45

Jan 28, 2026

Reply