District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10357

#1

Jan 26, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11499413 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Edinez Goncalves Nunes. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Category Form Category Form)(Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#2

Jan 26, 2026

Summons Returned Unexecuted by Edinez Goncalves Nunes as to Pamela Bondi, Patricia Hyde, Kristi L NOEM. (Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#3

Jan 26, 2026

First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Edinez Goncalves Nunes. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#4

Jan 27, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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 M. Page Kelley. (JKK) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#5

Jan 27, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#6

Jan 27, 2026

General Order 19-02

Jan 27, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Jan 28, 2026

Notice - Other

#8

Jan 28, 2026

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), mailed to Respondents on 1/28/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

Jan 28, 2026

Copy Mailed

#9

Feb 03, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#10

Feb 04, 2026

Letter/request - non-motion

#11

Feb 04, 2026

Extension of Time

#12

Feb 04, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#13

Feb 04, 2026

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

#14

Feb 05, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In light of Respondents’ answer, Dkt. 13, Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause in writing, on or before February 13, 2026, for why this Petition should not be dismissed. Petitioner alleges that she was detained in an inappropriate facility. Dkt. 1 paras. 19-26. However, it appears that she is no longer detained in that facility. Dkt. 10 . Because of the “‘prospective... nature’ of habeas relief,” the Court cannot order release based on past hardships. See Aguiriano Romero v. Hyde, 795 F. Supp. 3d 271, 275 (D. Mass. 2025) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 342 (1997) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)); see also Bautista-Guerrero v. Lyons et al, 1:25-cv-13525-BEM (D. Mass. Dec. 11, 2025) (stating that a habeas claim based on conditions of confinement is permissible only where the appropriate relief would be a “quantum change in the level of custody” (quoting Gonzalez-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864, 873 (1st Cir. 2010))). Respondents show that Petitioner was denied bond by an immigration judge on August 21, 2025. Dkt. 13 -1. Respondents are correct that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review that bond decision, insofar as it constitutes a challenge to “the IJ’s ultimate exercise of discretion.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 33 (1st Cir. 2021). (MBM) (Entered: 02/05/2026)

Feb 05, 2026

Order

#15

Feb 11, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#16

Feb 18, 2026

Notice - Other

Feb 18, 2026

Notice - Other

#17

Feb 20, 2026

Notice - Other

#18

Feb 23, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In her show-cause response, Petitioner states that, because of her “cardiovascular conditions,” “[s]he requires constant monitoring, stable treatment, and continuity of care,” which is “undermine[d]” by her “[p]rolonged detention.” See Dkt. 15 at 6. However, Petitioner provides the Court with no greater specifics regarding her medical condition, required treatment, or present detention. In the absence of such details, the Court would find that Petitioner has failed to set forth a “specific, serious, and unmet medical need[]” such to raise a habeas claim for relief from detention under the Fifth or Eighth Amendments. Cf. Gomes v. US Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Acting Sec’y, 460 F. Supp. 3d 132, 151 (D.N.H. 2020) (emphases removed) (quoting Coronel v. Decker, 449 F. Supp. 3d 274, 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)). Accordingly, the Court will deny this Petition on March 2, 2026, absent compelling counterargument. (MBM) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Order

#19

Feb 27, 2026

Response to Court Order

#20

Mar 02, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 11 Motion for Extension of Time To File Response to Petition. (BIB) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#21

Mar 11, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In her response, Petitioner asserts that her documented “structural brain abnormality” and “possible vascular irregularity” coupled with her “approximately twenty documented neurological episodes while detained, including loss of consciousness, left-sided paralysis, prolonged immobility, severe headaches, altered awareness, and episodes of unresponsiveness” together “constitute[] a specific, serious medical condition.” Dkt. 19 at 2-3; see also Dkt. 19 -1. Petitioner further asserts that she has not received the recommended specialist consultation or consistently received the medication prescribed after her emergency evaluation at Lahey Hospital. Dkt. 19 at 4. In light of Petitioner’s response, Respondents are ORDERED to show cause on or before March 12, 2026 at 5:00 pm for why this petition should not be granted. See Gomes v. US Dep't of Homeland Sec., Acting Sec'y, 460 F. Supp. 3d 132, 151 (D.N.H. 2020) (recognizing that a “specific, serious, and unmet medical need[]” may give rise to a habeas claim for relief from detention). (MBM) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

Mar 11, 2026

Order

#22

Mar 13, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents failed to respond to this Court’s order, Dkt. 21, to show cause for why this Petition should not be granted. Accordingly, this Petition is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that Petitioner be immediately released. (MBM) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#23

Mar 13, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT... In accordance with this Court’s Order (ECF #22) issued on March 13, 2026, granting the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED: Judgment for the Petitioner against the Respondents. (MBM) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

Mar 13, 2026

Order