Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00269

#1

Feb 18, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9370877), filed by Omar Loxkley Hugh Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Coversheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits) (Ferreira, Ana) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

Feb 18, 2026

CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ERROR: Attorney signature does not comply with requirements, SPECIFICALLY MISSING ALL CONTACT INFORMATION(EMAIL, MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER) AND BAR ID NUMBER.Party name(s) entered incorrectly. CORRECTION: Attorney directed to comply with all requirements of LCvR 5.2(B) in all future filings.Attorney is directed to enter party names correctly in all future filings. See the party naming conventions manual on the Court's website at https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/attorneys. (jd)

Feb 18, 2026

Judge Stephanie L. Haines added. (jd)

#2

Feb 20, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: The Court orders as follows: 1. Service. Petitioner's counsel shall serve Respondents with a copy of this order and the Petition via a single e-mail at: usapaw.civ.imm.2241.moshannon@usdoj.gov. The subject line of the email shall contain the case caption and case number of this case. If the Petition contains voluminous exhibits, they need not be emailed. The email service shall be deemed sufficient to accomplish formal service of the Petition. No other documents, pleadings, or motions may be emailed to this email address. 2. Certificate of compliance of service. Upon completion of service via e-mail as reflected in Paragraph 1, Petitioner's counsel shall file a notice of compliance, certifying the date and time of service. 3. Respondents' counsel notice of appearances. Counsel for Respondents shall file a notice of appearance within 3 days of the filing of Petitioner's Certificate of Compliance of Service. 4. Respondents' responses to the petition. Respondents shall file any responses or answers to the petition within 30 days of the date of service. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 2/20/2026. (dlg) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#3

Feb 23, 2026

AFFIDAVIT of Service for Habeas Petition and Exhibits served on Respondents on 02/18/26, filed by OMAR LOXKLEY HUGH MILLER. (Ferreira, Ana) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#4

Feb 25, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Jerome A. Moschetta on behalf of PAMELA BONDI, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, KRISTI NOEM, DAVID O'NEILL, LEONARD ODDO, U.S. Depmiment of Homeland Security. (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#5

Feb 25, 2026

CONSENT to Trial/Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge OR District Judge Option, by PAMELA BONDI, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, KRISTI NOEM, DAVID O'NEILL, LEONARD ODDO, U.S. Depmiment of Homeland Security. (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#6

Mar 13, 2026

SUPPLEMENT by OMAR LOXKLEY HUGH MILLER. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Supplement, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit) (Ferreira, Ana) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#7

Mar 19, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 6 Supplement, filed by PAMELA BONDI, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, KRISTI NOEM, DAVID O'NEILL, LEONARD ODDO, U.S. Depmiment of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice to Appear, # 2 Exhibit I-213) (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#8

May 15, 2026

ORDER - For the reasons stated by this Court in Calzado Diaz v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-458, 2025 WL 3628480 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025), vacated as moot, ECF No. 22 (Dec. 17, 2025) ("[T]he Court stresses that the general legal conclusions in the Court's opinion at ECF No. 16 regarding the application of §§ 1225 and 1226 remain unchanged by this Memorandum Order"), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED to the extent it seeks an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. 2) The Government is directed to provide Petitioner with the statutory process required under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which includes a bond hearing. 3) The Government shall arrange for an individualized bond hearing to be conducted by an immigration judge by Friday, May 22, 2026. 4) If Petitioner is not provided with a bond hearing by Friday, May 22, 2026, or if the immigration judge declines jurisdiction or denies eligibility for a bond hearing based on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), or Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025), or the statutory interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2) that this Court has rejected, Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody. 5) If Petitioner is granted bond and the Government appeals the Immigration Judge's decision on the basis that Petitioner's detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), then, upon notification to this Court, the writ shall issue and Petitioner shall be automatically released from custody. 6) The parties shall provide notice to the Court of the outcome of the individualized bond hearing within seven days of the date of the immigration judge's decision. 7) With no further action required by the Court at this time, the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter closed. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 5/14/2026. (dlg) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#9

May 15, 2026

JUDGMENT - It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Petitioner and against Respondents. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 5/14/2026. (dlg) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#10

May 22, 2026

NOTICE of Outcome of Bond Hearing by PAMELA BONDI, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, KRISTI NOEM, DAVID O'NEILL, LEONARD ODDO, U.S. Depmiment of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#11

May 28, 2026

NOTICE Outcome of Bond Hearing by OMAR LOXKLEY HUGH MILLER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit IJ Order Denying Bond) (Ferreira, Ana) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

May 28, 2026

CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 11 Notice. ERROR: Attorney signature does not comply with requirements, SPECIFICALLY MISSING ALL CONTACT INFORMATION AND BAR ID #. CORRECTION: Attorney directed to comply with all requirements of LCvR 5.2(B) in all future filings. (jd)

#12

Jun 26, 2026

First MOTION to Enforce May 14, 2026 Order by OMAR LOXKLEY HUGH MILLER. (Ferreira, Ana) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#13

Jun 29, 2026

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule. Upon Petitioner having filed a Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 12), Respondents shall file a response to this motion on or before July 13, 2026. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 6/29/26. 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: 06/29/2026)

Jun 29, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#14

Jul 23, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On June 29, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to respond to Petitioner's Motion to Enforce, ECF No. 12, on or before July 13, 2026. ECF No. 13. That deadline has expired, and Respondents have neither filed the required response nor sought an extension of time. Accordingly, on or before August 6, 2026, Respondents shall: (1) show cause why they failed to comply timely with the Court's Order; (2) file their response to Petitioner's Motion to Enforce; and (3) file the complete transcript of Petitioner's bond hearing. If the transcript is not presently available, Respondents shall explain specifically what efforts have been made to obtain it, why it cannot presently be filed, and when it will be available.Respondents are advised that failure to comply fully and timely with this Order may result in the Court deciding the Motion to Enforce without the benefit of their response and imposing such other relief as may be appropriate. Petitioner may file a reply within three days after Respondents comply with this Order. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 7/23/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (al) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

Jul 23, 2026

Order to Show Cause

#15

Jul 30, 2026

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to 12 Motion to Enforce, filed by PAMELA BONDI, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, KRISTI NOEM, DAVID O'NEILL, LEONARD ODDO, U.S. Depmiment of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Placeholder for Audio Exhibit)) (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

#16

Sep 10, 2026

NOTICE OF TRANSFER by OMAR LOXKLEY HUGH MILLER (Ferreira, Ana) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#17

Sep 22, 2026

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Enforce. The Court granted Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered that he be provided an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a). (ECF No. 8). He received the ordered hearing. The immigration judge determined that Petitioner failed to establish he is not a flight risk and denied bond. (ECF No. 10-1 at 1). Petitioner now moves to enforce the Court's Order. (ECF No. 12). In resolving Petitioner's Motion, the Court begins by observing that 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(e) specifically provides that no court "may set aside any action or decision under this section regarding the detention of any alien or the revocation or denial of bond or parole." This provision 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 alien's 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 Court holds that there is no merit to Petitioner's Motion. (ECF No. 12). The Court has no jurisdiction to review the substantive determination of the immigration judges and, upon review of the relevant filings in this case, sees no violation of due process. Indeed, the Court finds that Petitioner's Motion ultimately boils down to a disagreement with the IJ's bond decision, a decision that this Court lacks jurisdiction to reexamine. The Court therefore denies Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Judgment at ECF No. 12. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 9/22/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (al) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

Sep 22, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce