District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10254

#1

Jan 21, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11489485 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Luis Fabian Toapanta Condo. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Chatterjee, Shantanu) (Entered: 01/21/2026)

#2

Jan 21, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL(CM) (Entered: 01/21/2026)

#3

Jan 22, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell. (CM) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#4

Jan 22, 2026

Order

Jan 22, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jan 23, 2026

General Order 19-02

#6

Jan 23, 2026

Amended Complaint

#7

Feb 05, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Feb 05, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#9

Feb 07, 2026

Trial Brief

#10

Feb 09, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the amended petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Luis Fabian Toapanta Condo ("Petitioner"), D. 6, Respondents' response to same, D. 8, and Petitioner's reply, D. 9, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.Factual Background. Petitioner is a thirty-nine-year-old noncitizen from Ecuador currently detained at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 6 ¶¶ 1, 5; D. 6-1 at 1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2022 and now resides in Maine. D. 6 ¶¶ 1-2. On January 20, 2026, Petitioner was detained by ICE. Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner alleges that his detention is not authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that his custody is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 6-14, 28. Petitioner contends that his detention without a bond hearing is, therefore, unlawful, including because it violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, id. ¶¶ 8, 13-14, 32-46, and is contrary to statute and regulations, id. ¶¶ 28-31. Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 17. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context"). To the extent Respondents contend that the Court should dismiss the Petition because Petitioner failed to name his immediate custodian as a respondent, D. 8 at 1, this disregards that Petitioner amended the Petition to allege that he is being held at Plymouth County Correctional Facility and name Respondent Moniz, D. 6 ¶¶ 5, 20; D. 6-1 at 1, who is Petitioner's immediate custodian, see D. 9 at 4-5. Accordingly, the Court will not deny the Petition on this basis.Consistent with this Court's prior rulings, including and not limited to Da Silva v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025), and Dias de Carvalho v. Hyde, 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14, the Court agrees with Petitioner that his custody is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determinations of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), as Respondents contend, see D. 8 at 2 n.3; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). As alleged, Petitioner was already residing in the United States for several years before ICE detained him. D. 6 ¶ 1. Respondents submit that this Court's decision in Dias de Carvalho is likely dispositive here. See D. 8 at 2. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In a footnote, Respondents suggest that "[a]lternatively, this Court should dismiss" the Petition because of Petitioner's professed membership of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS. D. 8 at 2 n.2. The Court declines to determine the effect of the Guerrero Orellana declaratory judgment on this case in light of its independent determination regarding Petitioner's entitlement to a bond hearing. See Oliveira Batista v. Hyde, No. 26-cv-10195-FDS (D. Mass. Jan. 27, 2026), D. 9 at 2 n.2 (similar).For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes as follows. The Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 6, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41, which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.(LMH) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

Feb 09, 2026

Order