Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00228

#1

Feb 12, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9362217), filed by YEFRI CARLOS MENDOZA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A Passport Biographic Page, # 3 Exhibit B DHS Form I-830 issued 06Feb2026, # 4 Exhibit C Notice to Appear issued 02Feb2026, # 5 Exhibit D DHS Form I-830 issued 02Feb2026, # 6 Exhibit E EOIR Notice of Master Calendar Hearing on 20Feb2026) (Martinez, Pretty) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#2

Feb 12, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by YEFRI CARLOS MENDOZA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Martinez, Pretty) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#3

Feb 12, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by YEFRI CARLOS MENDOZA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Martinez, Pretty) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

Feb 12, 2026

Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan added. (sms)

#4

Feb 13, 2026

ORDER DENYING 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, is currently detained at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, and seeks to enjoin Respondent(s) from transferring him to another detention facility. Congress has vested the Secretary of Homeland Security and his/her delegates, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with the authority to detain aliens pending a decision on their removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(2), 1226(a), (c)(1). And Congress has vested the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the discretion to set the place of detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1); Sinclair v. Atty Gen., 198 F. Appx 218, 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Within DHS' discretion is the authority to transfer aliens from one detention center to another. Calla-Collado v. Atty Gen., 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011). Reading § 1231(g)(1) together with Congress' limitations in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) on federal district courts' jurisdiction to review discretionary actions by DHS, federal district courts have concluded that they lack jurisdiction to review DHS' decisions under § 1231. See, e.g., Jane v. Rodriguez, No. 20-5922, 2020 WL 10140953, *1-2 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020) (citing cases). Nor does the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provide the Court with jurisdiction to enjoin transfer. Barrios v. Atty Gen., 452 F. Appx 196, 198 (3d Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction-stripping provision in section § 1252(g) of INA, which is identical to jurisdiction-stripping language of §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), is not superseded by All Writs Act). Consistent with this authority, this Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to enjoin Petitioner's transfer. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners 2 Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 2/13/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#5

Feb 13, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Petitioner's counsel shall serve Respondents with a copy of this Order and the Petition via e-mail, as specified, and file a notice of compliance. Respondents' counsel shall file a notice of appearance within 3 days of the filing of Petitioner's Certificate of Compliance of Service. Respondents shall file any responses or answers to the petition within 30 days of the date of service. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 2/13/2026. (pak) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#6

Feb 13, 2026

ORDER denying 3 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Petitioner requests an order requiring Respondents to show cause why the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. Petitioner invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which provides that "[a] court, justice or judge 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, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." Section 2243 further provides that "[t]he writ, or order to show cause... shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed." Courts within this Circuit have found that Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings ("Habeas Rules"), applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas Rules, provides more flexible time limits for ordering an answer and supersedes the time limits of § 2243 to the extent there is a conflict. See Alvierez v. Bondi et al., Civil Action No. 26-532 (JXN), 2026 WL 146013, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2026)(collecting cases). This Court agrees. Accordingly, in light of the Court's 5 Case Management Order requiring Respondents to respond to the Petition within 30 days of service, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 3 Motion for Order to Show Cause is DENIED. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 2/13/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause

Feb 13, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO