District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-12612

#1

Sep 16, 2025

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11240583 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Alfredo Nunes Ribeiro. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form Civil Cover, # 2 Exhibits)(Silva, Jonatas) (Entered: 09/16/2025)

#2

Sep 17, 2025

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 Jessica D. Hedges. (JAM) (Entered: 09/17/2025)

#3

Sep 17, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (CAM) (Entered: 09/17/2025)

#4

Sep 17, 2025

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this action insofar as it seeks habeas relief. The “general rule [is] that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). Insofar as there is any relevant exception to that rule based on bad-faith transfer, jurisdiction would lie in “the district court from whose territory the petitioner [has] been removed.” Id. at 454 (Kennedy J., concurring). Mr. Ribeiro asserts that, on or about September 9, 2025, he was transferred from Berlin, New Hampshire to Miami, Florida. Dkt. 1 paras. 8, 13. Accordingly, at time of filing on September 16, 2025, habeas jurisdiction lay in the Southern District of Florida or, conceivably, in the District of New Hampshire. Lacking jurisdiction, the Court DENIES the Petition.Although not entirely clear, Mr. Ribeiro also appears to assert other causes of action, not sounding in habeas. See Dkt. 1 para. 7, 20-22 (referring to mandamus, conditions of confinement, the Rehabilitation Act, and the APA). Preliminarily, the Court assumes that the denial of the habeas petition does not immediately dispose of those civil claims. See Whitman v. Ventetuolo, 25 F.3d 1037 (1st Cir. 1994) (reversing dismissal of civil claim presented alongside properly dismissed habeas claim in a civil complaint). Nevertheless, other courts have found it appropriate to dismiss without prejudice non-habeas claims presented, as here, in a habeas petition due to the “substantive and procedural differences between habeas and civil rights claims.” See, e.g., Tyree v. Pepe, 2010 WL 3810854, at *2 (D. Mass. Sept. 27, 2010) (citing Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388-90 (7th Cir. 2005)).Accordingly, to the extent Mr. Ribeiro intends to pursue non-habeas claims as a civil action in this Court, he is ORDERED to reform his pleadings accordingly, by no later than Wednesday, September 24, 2025.(MBM) (Entered: 09/17/2025)

Sep 17, 2025

Order

Sep 17, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Sep 29, 2025

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (MBM) (Entered: 09/29/2025)