District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10292

#1

Jan 23, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11492458 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Junie Thelus. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4)(Klein, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#2

Jan 23, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNINGSTAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL ORDER entered. (PK) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#3

Jan 23, 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (CM) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#4

Jan 23, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#5

Jan 23, 2026

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (SEC) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Jan 24, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#7

Jan 24, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion 6 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order requesting immediate release : This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the courtroom deputy of the session as soon as possible.Audio access to the hearing may be available to the media and public. Please check the Court schedule. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html.For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the general orders and public notices of the Court available on www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact the session here. Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2026 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11 (Remote only) before Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper. (CM) (Entered: 01/24/2026)

#8

Jan 24, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Given that the TRO motion, D. 6, was filed today and the Court wants the benefit of the government's expedited response, the Court supersedes D. 7 and sets January 26, 2026 as the deadline for the government's response to the motion that was filed today. If the Court determines that a hearing is warranted, the Court will consult with counsel for the parties about setting a date for an in-person hearing after January 26, 2026. This Order supersedes the prior entry at D. 7.(LMH) (Entered: 01/24/2026)

#9

Jan 24, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing. In light of D. 8, the hearing set for 1/26/26 is canceled. (LMH) (Entered: 01/24/2026)

#10

Jan 24, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Eleni R. Bakst Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-11496587 by Junie Thelus.(Klein, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/24/2026)

Jan 24, 2026

Order

Jan 24, 2026

Notice Cancelling Hearing

Jan 24, 2026

Notice Setting or Resetting Hearing on Motion

#11

Jan 25, 2026

Amended Complaint

#12

Jan 26, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#13

Jan 27, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#14

Jan 28, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#15

Jan 29, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having considered the motion of Junie Thelus ("Petitioner") for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), D. 6, the government's opposition to same, D. 12, and Petitioner's reply, D. 14, the Court DENIES the motion to the extent it seeks immediate release from detention. As Petitioner has raised serious concerns regarding her access to counsel and mental health support at the ICE Boston Field Office, the Court ORDERS the government to file a status report within five (5) days of this Order explaining (1) how Respondents have facilitated visitation between this specific Petitioner and her counsel; and (2) how Respondents have facilitated this specific Petitioner's access to medication and mental health support. Factual Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen from Haiti who has been living in the United States since 2024. D. 11 ¶ 18. On or around June 10, 2024, Petitioner entered the United States and was served with a Notice to Appear by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") stating that she was "an arriving alien." D. 11-2 at 1. That same day, DHS paroled Petitioner into the United States pursuant to INA Section 212(d)(5)(A), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182. D. 11 ¶ 18; see D. 11-1. On February 18, 2025, Petitioner's husband filed an I-589, Application for Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Protection under the Convention Against Torture on behalf of himself, Petitioner and their children. D. 11 ¶ 19. Petitioner's parole into the United States expired on April 18, 2025. D. 11-1. Petitioner is currently in removal proceedings in the Chelmsford Immigration Court with a hearing scheduled for May 21, 2026. D. 11 ¶ 22. On December 11, 2025, Petitioner was arrested for assault and battery on a family member. D. 12-2 at 2. The next day, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detained Petitioner and transferred her to the Cumberland County Jail ("CCJ"). D. 11 ¶ 21. On January 22, 2026, Petitioner was transferred from CCJ to the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO") Office in Burlington, Massachusetts ("ICE Boston Field Office"). Id. ¶ 25. The hold room at ICE Boston Field Office is a short-term, temporary space to hold detainees, pending processing, transfer, or release. D. 12-4 ¶ 6. Typically, "ICE utilizes the hold room to detain an alien on a temporary basis, until it can identify bedspace and logistics to effectuate the transfer into a facility that is equipped to house detainees on a permanent basis." Id. ¶ 7. There are currently no ICE detention centers in Massachusetts that are contracted to detain females. D. 11 ¶ 25.Petitioner has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, depressive type and generalized anxiety disorder. Id. ¶ 2. Petitioner alleges that while in ICE detention, she has struggled to communicate with counsel in her removal proceedings and has been unable to communicate with her husband and children due her mental illness. Id. ¶ 21. Her counsel has been unable to verify whether or not Petitioner has received any mental healthcare or medication while in detention and to her counsel's knowledge, ICE has not facilitated calls between Petitioner and her family, despite her counsel's repeated requests to do so. Id. On January 23, 2026, Petitioner's counsel attempted to visit her at the ICE Boston Field Office and was told that while Petitioner remained in custody there, "access to her would be impossible, even through their existing [video conference] system." Id. ¶ 24; see D. 11-6 ¶¶ 2-9; see also D. 11-7 ¶ 13. Petitioner has a hearing for her criminal matter scheduled for January 29, 2026. D. 11 ¶ 23; D. 12-3 at 1.On January 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. D. 1. On January 24, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant TRO motion requesting immediate release from detention. D. 6. Petitioner filed the operative amended Petition on January 25, 2026. D. 11.Standard of Review. "[A]llowance of a TRO, as with a preliminary injunction, is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded as of right." Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision Res., LLC, 592 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D. Mass. 2022) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). To obtain any form of preliminary injunctive relief, including a TRO, a plaintiff "must demonstrate: 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, 2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld, 3) a favorable balance of hardships, and 4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the injunction and the public interest." Chiang v. Skeirik, 529 F. Supp. 2d 166, 172 (D. Mass. 2007) (citing NievesMrquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003)). The likelihood of success on the merits is the "critical" factor in the analysis. Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Discussion. Petitioner brings her amended Petition to challenge her detention in this district and seeks relief from same. D. 11. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging her 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").In her amended Petition, Petitioner alleges that her detention and potential out-of-state transfer violates her substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment (Count I), her procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment (Count II), the INA (Count III), the First Amendment (Count IV) and the Administrative Procedure Act (Count V). D. 11 ¶¶ 60-87. In her TRO motion, Petitioner moves for injunctive relief only on the basis of her Fifth Amendment and INA claims. D. 6 at 5-11. Accordingly, the Court analyzes only these claims for purposes of deciding the motion.Petitioner's motion for injunctive relief requesting immediate release from detention fails because Petitioner has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of her INA and Fifth Amendment claims as to her requested relief of immediate release. Petitioner argues that "[her] ongoing detention violates [her] Fifth Amendment right to due process and the [INA], 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)." D. 6 at 5-6. Petitioner alleges that she has been denied access to counsel since being detained at the ICE Boston Field Office. D. 11 ¶ 24; see Baltazar-Alcazar v. I.N.S., 386 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that "[t]he right to counsel in removal proceedings is derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and a statutory grant under 8 U.S.C. § 1362"). Petitioner submits affidavits from counsel indicating that they were denied a meeting with Petitioner on January 23, 2026 and that officers at the ICE Boston Field Office told them that they would be unable to meet or videoconference with Petitioner until she was transferred to a detention facility. D. 11-6 ¶¶ 2-9; see D. 11-7 ¶ 13. In response, the government submits a declaration from the Assistant Field Director for ICE Boston averring that detainees in the ICE Boston Field Office can call their attorneys and attorneys can coordinate in-person meetings with detainees, "depend[ing] on the availability of ICE personnel to facilitate the meeting" and "subject to limitations during shift changes, transfers of detainees into or out of the ICE Boston Field Office, or other times when on-site staffing is limited or handling emergent issues." D. 12-4 ¶¶ 16-18. On this record, the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner has shown that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her denial of counsel claim as to her current detention. Petitioner also advances arguments as to how the conditions of her present detention violate her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, D. 6 at 6-8; see D. 14 at 5-6, and suggests that the personnel at the ICE Boston Field Office have failed to adequately "address her medical condition," D. 11 ¶ 50; see D. 11-5 at 1, though she concedes that her counsel has been unable to verify whether her medical needs have or have not been met, see D. 11 ¶ 21; see also D. 12-4 ¶¶ 14-15. Challenges to conditions of confinement, however, are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Koehn v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 25-cv-11175-AK, 2025 WL 3194742, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 2025); see Garcia v. Spaulding, 324 F. Supp. 3d 228, 233 (D. Mass. 2018). Petitioner thus has not established a likelihood of success on the merits on this basis and the Court need not address the other requisite elements required for injunctive relief. To the extent Petitioner also advances these claims as to her impending transfer, see D. 6 at 9; see also D. 11 ¶¶ 1, 30-34, Petitioner has also failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. While some courts have concluded that, under certain circumstances, a petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that their out-of-state transfers violates their statutory and constitutional right to assistance of counsel in removal proceedings, see Phetsadakone v. Scott, No. 25-cv-01678-JNW, 2025 WL 2579569, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 5, 2025) (noting that "[c]onduct by ICE, including detention transfers away from counsel, may interfere with an existing attorney-client relationship in contravention of a noncitizen's constitutional and statutory right to counsel") (citing Rios-Berrios v. I.N.S., 776 F.2d 859, 862-63 (9th Cir. 1985)); Chang Barrios v. Shepley, No. 25-cv-00406-JAW, 2025 WL 2280453, at *1-3 (D. Me. Aug. 8, 2025); Bolanos v. Arnott, No. 25-cv-3380-MDH, 2025 WL 3641577, at *1-2 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 16, 2025), those cases involved circumstances where a petitioner was subject to "repeated transfers of [their] physical person and corresponding transfers of [their] immigration proceedings," id. at *1, transfer outside the country, Phetsadakone, 2025 WL 2579569, at *1-4, and the government's refusal to help their counsel "locate and communicate with [the petitioner]," and to disclose where the petitioner was being held, Chang Barrios, 2025 WL 2280453, at *3. The circumstances as presently alleged here do not rise to the same level. Moreover, Petitioner has not established that she is likely to succeed on these claims as to her impending transfer with respect to her requested relief of immediate release. Whereas other courts have concluded that petitioners were likely to succeed on such claims with respect to a requested stay order preventing an out-of-district transfer, see Chang Barrios, 2025 WL 2280453, at *3; Bolanos, 2025 WL 3641577, at *2, here, Petitioner requests immediate release, not a stay of transfer. Petitioner has also not established that ordering her immediate release from detention would "restore the status quo ante litem" where she was lawfully detained pending her removal proceedings before the "current controversy." Cf. Phetsadakone, 2025 WL 2579569, at *5 (granting release from detention on basis of denial of access to counsel claim where "[t]he last uncontested status here was [petitioner's] release on supervision" and the government's "re-detentionallegedly without following required procedurescreated the current controversy"). Given these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of her INA and Fifth Amendment claims as to her transfer with respect to her requested relief of immediate release and the Court does not reach the other prongs of the requested injunctive relief in the absence of a showing of likelihood of success.Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to injunctive relief on the basis of her INA and Fifth Amendment claims to the extent she seeks immediate release from detention. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for injunctive relief to the extent it seeks immediate release from detention. D. 6. As Petitioner has raised serious concerns regarding her access to counsel and mental health support, the Court ORDERS the government to file a status report within five (5) days of this Order explaining (1) how Respondents have facilitated visitation between this specific Petitioner and her counsel; and (2) how Respondents have facilitated this specific Petitioner's access to medication and mental health support.(SEC) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

Jan 29, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

#16

Jan 30, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#17

Jan 30, 2026

Response to Motion

#18

Jan 31, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 16 Motion to transfer Petitioner by Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi L. Noem, David Wesling. The Court is in receipt of Respondents' motion to transfer, D.16, and Petitioner's notice that she opposes same, D. 17. Given these filings and to give the Court the opportunity to consider the matter, the Court DENIES the motion to transfer to the extent that it seeks transfer the Petitioner before Thursday, 2/5. Petitioner shall file any opposition by Monday, 2/2 at 5 pm; the Respondents may then file a reply by 2/3 at 5 pm. The Respondents' filing shall indicate whether they agree that this Court would retain jurisdiction over the Petition if any transfer occurs as they have done in other cases involving transfers out of the district but which was not addressed in D. 16. (LMH) (Entered: 01/31/2026)

Jan 31, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#19

Feb 02, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#20

Feb 03, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#21

Feb 03, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#22

Feb 04, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On January 29, 2026, the Court denied the motion of Petitioner Junie Thelus ("Petitioner") for a temporary restraining order to the extent it sought release from detention, but ordered the Respondents to file a status report explaining (1) how Respondents have facilitated visitation between this specific Petitioner and her counsel; and (2) how Respondents have facilitated this specific Petitioner's access to medication and mental health support. D. 15. The government has since moved to transfer Petitioner to Texas, D. 16, and filed a notice consistent with the Court's order concerning stay of transfer, id.; see D. 4. Petitioner indicated her intent to oppose the motion, D. 17, and the Court set an expedited briefing schedule to hear from both parties. D. 18. The Court has now reviewed the briefing by both parties: the government's initial motion to transfer, D. 16, Petitioner's opposition, D. 19, the government's reply and revised motion to transfer, D. 20, and Petitioner's further opposition, D. 21.In their reply, the Respondents have indicated that there is bed space for Petitioner at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington, Vermont ("Chittenden Facility"), D. 20 at 2, and, instead of transferring Petitioner to a ICE facility in Texas as originally proposed, D. 16 at 1, they now intend to transfer her to the Chittenden Facility. D. 20 at 2. Respondents also provided an update on Petitioner's access to her attorney and to medication and mental health support at the ICE Boston Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts. Id. at 4-5; D. 20-1 ¶¶ 12-17. They also agree that with a transfer of the Petitioner to the Chittenden Facility, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the Petition. D. 20 at 2. Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the government's request to transfer Petitioner to the Chittenden Facility, D. 20, and DENIES the government’s initial request for transfer, D. 16, as moot. Given the imminent transfer of Petitioner to a new facility, the Court ORDERS Respondents to file a new status report within five (5) days of this Order explaining (1) how Respondents have facilitated visitation between this specific Petitioner and her counsel at the Chittenden Facility; and (2) how Respondents have facilitated this specific Petitioner's access to medication and mental health support at the Chittenden Facility.(LMH) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

Feb 04, 2026

Order

#23

Feb 09, 2026

Status Report

#24

Feb 12, 2026

Hearing