District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10629

#1

Feb 06, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11532533 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Darleny Magnolia Alonso. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ladebush, Branden) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#2

Feb 06, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL(svm) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#3

Feb 09, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick 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. (SEC) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#4

Feb 09, 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). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#5

Feb 09, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than February 11, 2026. (Attachment(s: # 1 *SEALED* Appendix) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#6

Feb 09, 2026

Copy re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 5 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal mailed to David Wesling, Todd Lyons and Kristi Noem on 2/9/2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

Feb 09, 2026

Copy Mailed

Feb 09, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Feb 10, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Feb 10, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#9

Feb 10, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 8 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 2/13/2026 to File Response/Reply as to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

Feb 10, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#10

Feb 12, 2026

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

#11

Feb 13, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Darleny Magnolia Alonzo, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 6, 2026 seeking her immediate release or, in the alternative, a transfer to an off-site medical facility. ECF 1, ¶¶ 1, 3, 6, 8, 19. Four days earlier, she was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at its Burlington Field Office in Massachusetts. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7, 18. Since Alonzo suffers from a serious medical condition and severe mental health issues, she was subsequently transferred to Lahey Hospital and Medical Center to receive medical treatment, where she remains in ICE custody. Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 24; ECF 8, ¶ 3; ECF 10, at 1. Alonzo was a Lawful Permanent Resident in the United States who became subject to a final order of removal dated July 22, 2019 after failing to attend her hearing in Immigration Court. Id. ¶ 3; ECF 10-1. That Court granted Alonzo’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings on February 9, 2026, after the filing of her habeas petition, because she had “established that [her] failure to appear was the result of a lack of notice.” ECF 10-2.When Alonzo filed her habeas petition, she claimed that the respondents’ failure to provide her with access to medical treatment violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. ECF 1, ¶¶ 1, 5, 26-29. Alonzo also requested that the Court order that she be released or, alternatively, transferred “to an external medical facility with the resources needed to address [her] medical concerns and, when medically appropriate, place[d]... in a community-based alternative to detention such as conditional release, with access to appropriate medical care.” Id. ¶ 6, and at 8. The respondents contend, as a threshold matter, that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not the proper avenue to challenge the conditions of her confinement. But the First Circuit has noted that Section 2241 “is the appropriate vehicle by which to challenge the ‘manner of execution’ of a person’s confinement,” including “‘to contest one’s imprisonment in a specific facility.’” Cockerham v. Boncher, 125 F.4th 11, 22 n.6 (1st Cir. 2024) (quoting Francis v. Maloney, 798 F.3d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 2015)); seeGarcia v. Spaulding, 324 F. Supp. 3d 228, 234 (D. Mass. 2018) (Section 2241 applied where petitioner sought to change his level of confinement from prison to a hospital). Nevertheless, there is no longer a live controversy over Alonzo’s challenge to her conditions of confinement because she was, as requested in her petition, transferred to an external medical facility, where she is receiving medical treatment.The respondents concede that because Alonzo is no longer subject to a final order of removal, she is now detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and is therefore entitled a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF 10, at 1-2. The Court agrees. See Gomes v. Hyde, 804 F. Supp. 3d 265, 276 (D. Mass. 2025); dos Santos v. Noem, No. 25-cv-12052-JEK, 2025 WL 2370988, at *7 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025); Sampiao v. Hyde, 799 F. Supp. 3d 14, 28 (D. Mass. 2025). Noncitizens like Alonzo “detained under Section 1226(a) have the right to request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, at which the government bears the burden to prove that continued detention is justified.” Sampiao, 799 F. Supp. 3d at 19-20. Bond may be denied only if the government “either (1) prove[s] by clear and convincing evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a danger to the community or (2) prove[s] by a preponderance of the evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a flight risk.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).In the respondents’ view, this petition should nonetheless be denied because Alonzo has not yet requested a bond hearing and has thus failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. They acknowledge, however, that Alonzo was “subject to a final order of removal and detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231” until the Immigration Court agreed to reopen her removal proceedings on February 9, 2026. ECF 10, at 1. This means that, when the petition was filed on February 6, 2026, she could not have requested a bond hearing and had therefore exhausted her administrative remedies. Having requested “any other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper,” Alonzo is, as the respondents admit, entitled to a bond hearing. ECF 1, at 8.For the foregoing reasons, Alonzo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to provide her with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of this Order. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report on or before February 23, 2026, notifying the Court whether Alonzo has been granted bond and released or, if her request for bond was denied, providing the reasons for that denial. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Order

#12

Feb 17, 2026

NOTICE of Intent to Transfer by Todd M Lyons, Kristi Noem, David Wesling (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#13

Feb 17, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner is ORDERED to respond to the respondents' notice of intent to transfer, ECF 12, on or before February 18, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#14

Feb 17, 2026

Stay

#15

Feb 17, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.Petitioner's Motion to Stay Transfer, ECF 14, is GRANTED. On February 13, 2026, this Court granted petitioner Darleny Magnolia Alonzo's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the respondents to provide her with a bond hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of the order—i.e., by February 20, 2026. ECF 11. In order to effectuate this Court's February 13, 2026 order, the respondents are ORDERED not to move the petitioner out of the District of Massachusetts unless and until bond is denied at that hearing and the respondents have notified the Court of that fact by status report. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Order

Feb 17, 2026

Order on Motion to Stay

#16

Feb 19, 2026

Status Report

#17

Feb 19, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court notes the government's status report regarding the bond hearing and its intent to transfer the petitioner to a detention facility in Texas that can address her medical needs. See ECF 16 . A remote hearing on this request shall be held on February 20, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall be prepared to address the basis for the Immigration Judge's denial of bond, including any reliance on the petitioner's criminal record, and the government's anticipated timeline for transferring the petitioner. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#18

Feb 19, 2026

NOTICE OF HEARING: Hearing set for 2/20/2026 at 10:30 AM in a remote proceeding before District Judge Julia E. Kobick. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

Feb 19, 2026

Order

Feb 19, 2026

Notice of Hearing

#19

Feb 20, 2026

Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before District Judge Julia E. Kobick: Hearing held on 2/20/2026 by video conference. Case called. The Court notes it granted the habeas petition and ordered that the petitioner be granted a bond hearing within 7 days of the order. The Court notes the respondents' notice of intent to transfer the petitioner to Texas and the following order barring the respondents from moving the petitioner while detained. The Court hears from the parties on what the reasoning was regarding the denial of bond and the process of the petitioner being discharged from Lahey and moved to Texas. The Court notes it believes this case is effectively completed with this Court and judgment should enter but hears the parties on all other matter regarding the petitioner's status. The Court notes it does not think it has jurisdiction on this matter and will enter judgment following the hearing but wanted to give the parties an opportunity to give their positions. The Court will also enter an order making clear the barring of transferring the petitioner is lifted. Attorneys present: Branden Ladebush for the Petitioner. Erica McMahon for the Respondents.Court Reporter: Catherine Zelinski at CAL.Zelinski.Steno@gmail.com. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#20

Feb 20, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court’s order prohibiting the respondents from transferring the petitioner outside of Massachusetts, ECF 15, is hereby VACATED. As the respondents reported in their status report, ECF 16, and as the parties discussed at today’s hearing, an Immigration Judge found by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner poses a danger to the community and therefore denied her request for release on bond. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1), the Attorney General has authority to “arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal.” Petitioner’s habeas petition having been adjudicated and her bond hearing having been held, there is no longer a basis for preventing the respondents from transferring the petitioner to a place of detention that meets her medical needs. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#21

Feb 20, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: JUDGMENT entered. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

Feb 20, 2026

Hearing - Other

Feb 20, 2026

Order