Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06102

#1

Jan 24, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5694329.), filed by Lino Guzman Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 01/24/2026)

Jan 26, 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. (JLH)

Jan 26, 2026

Case originally assigned to incorrect office. Case is assigned to Judge Meredith A. Vacca and the new case number is 26-cv-6102. All future docketing should be entered on the new case number. Notification to Chambers of on-line civil case opening. (JLH)

#2

Jan 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Lino Guzman Lopez, a citizen of Mexico, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 24, 2026, while being held as a civil immigration detainee at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443-47 (2004). Petitioner seeks, among other things, a writ of habeas corpus requiring his immediate release. ECF No. 1.28 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." Further, in light of the Court's prior orders on this issue, including its decision granting relief in Da Cunha v. Freden et al., 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. 1, and a copy of this text 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 furtherORDERED 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 furtherORDERED 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 01/27/2026. (JCL)Clerk to Follow up Modified on 1/28/2026 to correct the "Signed by" date from 2025 to 2026. (JCL) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

Jan 28, 2026

Clerk emailed 1 Petition to USANYW-ImmigrationHabeas@usdoj.gov. (TF)

#3

Feb 02, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#4

Feb 02, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#5

Feb 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Respondents' return to the Court's Text Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 2. The return concedes that this case shares 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 controls the results in the instant case should the Court adhere to its prior reasoning. ECF No. 4. Petitioners may notify the Court at their earliest opportunity that they do not intend to submit a reply, and the Court will consider the matter submitted on the papers and proceed to a review of the merits. If Petitioners desire to submit a written reply, they must do so within 7 days of the date of service of Respondents' return, as set forth in the Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 2. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 02/05/2026. (JCL) (Entered: 02/05/2026)

#6

Feb 05, 2026

Letter filed by Lino Guzman Lopez indicating that Petitioner does not intend to submit a reply. (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2026)

#7

Feb 06, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On January 24, 2026, Petitioner filed an emergency 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. 1. The Court ordered that Respondents show cause within 14 days as to why the petition should not be granted. ECF No. 2.Respondents filed a response on February 2, 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.The Petition 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. 1. 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 furtherORDERED that Respondents shall file a status report no later than February 23, 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 furtherORDERED 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 2/06/2026. (JCL)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 02/06/2026)