Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00264

Feb 17, 2026

Judge Stephanie L. Haines added. (rjr)

#1

Feb 19, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (for Clerk of Court personnel only)

#2

Feb 20, 2026

Case Management Order

#3

Feb 23, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew McHale on behalf of PAM BONDI, BRIAN MCSHANE, KRISTI NOEM, LEONARD ODDO. (McHale, Matthew) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#4

Mar 23, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by PAM BONDI, BRIAN MCSHANE, KRISTI NOEM, LEONARD ODDO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (McHale, Matthew) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#5

Apr 17, 2026

Order

#6

Apr 17, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)

#7

Apr 23, 2026

NOTICE of outcome of bond hearing by PAM BONDI, BRIAN MCSHANE, KRISTI NOEM, LEONARD ODDO (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (McHale, Matthew) (Entered: 04/23/2026)

#8

May 12, 2026

Enforce AND Miscellaneous Relief (Use ONLY if no other relief applies)

#9

May 12, 2026

Bond

#10

May 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER. Petitioner having filed 8 Motion to Enforce Court Order, 9 Motion for Bond Redetermination, the Court hereby directs Respondents to respond to said motions on or before June 15, 2026. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 5/15/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (cag) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Order

#12

Jun 22, 2026

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Enforce Court Order and for Immediate Release and denying 9 Motion for Bond Redetermination. The Court granted Petitioners Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered that he be provided an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1226. He received the ordered hearing. The immigration judge determined that Petitioner failed to show that he was not a danger to the community and posed a flight risk and denied bond. Petitioner now moves to enforce the Courts Order and for another bond redetermination hearing. Specifically, Petitioner takes issue with the fact that he was denied bond. As a preliminary matter, 8 U.S.C. 1226(e) specifically provides, in relevant part, that no court may set aside any action or decision regarding detention or release of any alien. This divests district courts of the jurisdiction to reexamine the bond decisions of immigration judges. Nevertheless, two (unpublished) decisions of the Third Circuit have held that a district court may examine an aliens bond hearing to determine whether it fell below the minimum standards of due process. See: Quinteras v. Warden Pike Cty. Corr. Fac., 784 Fed. Appx. 75 (3d Cir. 2019), and Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cty. Corr. Fac. 2022 WL 574624 (3d Cir. 2022). In this case there is no question that Petitioner received a bond hearing, as ordered. There is, likewise, no question that the stated reason for denial of bond was the determination that he poses a flight risk. This determination is unreviewable under 8 USC 1226(e). The only challenge to the hearing that could be construed as one to the minimal compliance of the hearing with the minimum requirement of due process is that Petitioner did not receive adequate notice of the hearing. Petitioner contends that he was brought to the last minute bond hearing without any scheduled previous notice on April 22, 2026. (ECF No. 8 p. 4). Plaintiff argues that he received the letter, seemingly containing the Order from this Court granting his Petition, after his bond hearing. (Id.). He argues that there was a lack of announcement, manner, and time which this bond hearing was conducted, [and therefore] the intention of prejudice against [him] is clear... (Id. p. 5). The Court finds Plaintiffs argument to be disingenuous. The Court granted Plaintiffs Petition on April 17, 2026 and this order was mailed to Petitioner the same day. (ECF No. 5, 6). Plaintiff then had his individualized bond hearing on April 22, 2026. (ECF No. 11 at 2). Plaintiff argues that the Court issued the order on April 22, 2026 and his bond hearing was scheduled the same day. (ECF No. 8). This is incorrect. Further, the Court finds that Petitioners Motion for Bond Redetermination (ECF No. 9) is without merit for the reasons stated above. The Court holds that there is no merit to Petitioners Motions. It has no jurisdiction to review the substantive determination of the immigration judges and sees no violation of due process. The Motion to Enforce Judgment and Motion for Bond Redetermination are denied. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 6/22/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (cry) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

Jun 22, 2026

Order on Motion for Bond AND Order on Motion to Enforce