District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-01016

#1

Feb 03, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Feb 03, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#3

Feb 03, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Acting pursuant to the All Writs Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the Court hereby enjoins the Respondents and those acting for them from removing the Petitioner from this District or causing his removal. This is an administrative stay, the purpose of which is to briefly freeze the status quo so that this case can be evaluated by the Court. See Zheng v. Bondi, 2025 WL 280542, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025). So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 2/3/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 02/03/2026)

Feb 03, 2026

Text Order

#4

Feb 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER: A bond hearing shall be conducted on or before February 6 at 5:00pm, unless, by February 6 at 3:00pm the Respondents file a letter explaining either (i) that the Petitioner has asked to adjourn the bond hearing or (ii) that, due to relevant and meaningful procedural or factual distinctions, this case is not controlled by the Court's prior decisions in Chiquito Barzola v. Warden (2:25-cv-17326); Martinez Ron v. Lyons (2:25-cv-17359); and Mboup v. Field Off. Dir. of N.J. Immigr. & Customs Enf't (2:25-cv-16882). The Respondents shall file a status update letter on or before February 9 at 5:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 2/5/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 02/05/2026)

Feb 05, 2026

Text Order

#5

Feb 06, 2026

Substitution of Attorney

#6

Feb 06, 2026

Letter

#7

Feb 06, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents have acted in violation of a judicial order, see ECF 6, but it appears they did not do so intentionally; rather, the difficulty seems to have been that the United States Attorney's Office did not promptly convey the Court's order to the Respondents. An affidavit shall be filed by the Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office. It shall be based on a sufficient investigation, personally undertaken by the Chief and described in the affidavit. It shall be filed on or before February 10 at 9:00am. It shall indicate in detail what happened in this case --- including precise information as to how and why the Court's order was not followed. It shall also explain whether the various remedial steps, personally described by the Chief to the undersigned in the context of another recent case (Guamug Pacheco v. Soto (2:26-cv-00024-MEF)) were followed. If they were not, the Chief shall explain why. If they were followed, the Chief shall explain why they seem to have failed here and whether, in his judgment, further remedial processes need to be put in place. The Respondents shall file a letter on or before February 11 at noon. As to any filing on the docket that remains sealed as of that time and date, the letter shall explain why sealing meets the governing legal standards.. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 2/6/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

Feb 06, 2026

Text Order

#8

Feb 09, 2026

Letter

#9

Feb 09, 2026

Declaration

#10

Feb 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Declaration at ECF 9 is thoughtful, and reflects an intensity of senior-level focus on a class of cases that plainly requires a real-time, hands-on approach. The procedures that have been put in place, see ECF 9 at 2-4, following a prior difficulty in this area, see id. at 4, are substantial. So too are the further procedures that the Chief of the Civil Division has committed to following. See id. at 15. But one way or another, a judicial order was not complied with here. The remedy, if any, that might be appropriate will depend to an extent on the broader track record in this area. As to that track record, the Court anticipates a filing this week in the case of Kumar v. Soto (2:26-cv-00777-MEF). So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 2/11/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#11

Feb 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The public has a right to access court records. See Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986). The right can sometimes be overcome, and a court filing can be sealed. The Respondents have filed a declaration at ECF 9 under seal. It is not clear how this document might meet the legal standards for sealing. Should the Respondents wish to seal the referenced declaration, in whole or in part, they shall file a motion for sealing. It shall be supported by a letter brief that musters the relevant legal authorities. The motion and the associated materials shall be filed on or before February 11 at 4:00pm. If no filing is received by then, the Court will order the unsealing of ECF 9 . So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 2/11/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#12

Feb 11, 2026

Letter

Feb 11, 2026

Text Order

Feb 17, 2026

Text Order

#14

Feb 26, 2026

Mail Returned

#15

Feb 26, 2026

Mail Returned

Mar 12, 2026

Text Order

Mar 16, 2026

Order of Dismissal

#18

Apr 01, 2026

Mail Returned