Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00284

#1

Feb 19, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9375721), filed by JOSE JOEL ORELLANA CRUZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit NTA) (Yacub, Ivan) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#2

Feb 19, 2026

MOTION for attorney Ivan Yacub to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $70, Receipt # APAWDC-9375761) by JOSE JOEL ORELLANA CRUZ. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit & Certificate, # 2 Proposed Order) (Yacub, Ivan) Link added to Errata filed at 3 . Modified text on 2/20/2026. (kss) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#3

Feb 20, 2026

Errata re 2 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by JOSE JOEL ORELLANA CRUZ. Reason for Correction: Case number. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Yacub, Ivan) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

Feb 20, 2026

Judge Stephanie L. Haines added. (kss)

Feb 20, 2026

CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 2 MOTION for attorney Ivan Yacub to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ERROR: No case number on documents. CORRECTION: Filer is directed to file the documents with a corrected case number using the Errata event. (kss)

#4

Feb 23, 2026

Errata re 2 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, by JOSE JOEL ORELLANA CRUZ. Reason for Correction: Certificate of Good Standing with seal. (Yacub, Ivan) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#5

Feb 23, 2026

Case Management Order

Feb 23, 2026

CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 3 Errata. ERROR: Certificate of Good Standing does not have a seal. CORRECTION: Filer is directed to file the certificate of good standing with a seal using the Errata event. (kss)

#6

Feb 24, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#7

Feb 24, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Compliance re 5 Case Management Order, by Ivan Yacub on behalf of JOSE JOEL ORELLANA CRUZ (Yacub, Ivan) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#8

Feb 25, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Paul E. Skirtich on behalf of PAMELA BONDI, KRISTI NOEM, LEONARDO ODDO, CAMILLA WAMSLEY. (Skirtich, Paul) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#9

Mar 26, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by PAMELA BONDI, KRISTI NOEM, LEONARDO ODDO, CAMILLA WAMSLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Skirtich, Paul) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#10

Mar 30, 2026

REPLY in Support to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by JOSE JOEL ORELLANA CRUZ. (Yacub, Ivan) Modified text on 3/30/2026 to correct document linkage. (kss) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

Mar 30, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 10 Reply. ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Filer advised to link filing to related document(s) in future filings. Clerk added link to appropriate document(s). THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. (kss)

#11

Apr 30, 2026

Preliminary Injunction AND Temporary Restraining Order

#12

Apr 30, 2026

TEXT ORDER denying 11 Motion for TRO; denying 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Petitioner seeks the return of Petitioner to the Moshannon Valley Processing Center from his current place of detention at Winn Correctional Center in Louisiana. In other words Petitioner seeks to enjoin transfer outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pending the proceedings in this case. This Court lacks authority to grant that relief as the places of detention for aliens pending removal is left to the discretion of the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1). Congress has "limited federal district courts' jurisdiction to review decisions or actions made pursuant to the sound discretion of DHS officials[.]" Jane v. Rodriguez, No. CV 20-5922 (ES), 2020 WL 10140953, at *1 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)(B)(ii) provides that "no court shall have jurisdiction to review any decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security...." And, in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1), Congress clearly set forth that: "[t]he Attorney General shall arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal." In this way, § 1231(g)(1) establishes that:[T]he place of detention is left to the discretion of the Attorney General. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1) ("The Attorney General shall arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal."); Gandarillas-Zambrana v. BIA, 44 F.3d 1251, 1256 (4th Cir.1995) ("The INS necessarily has the authority to determine the location of detention of an alien in deportation proceedings... and therefore, to transfer aliens from one detention center to another."); RiosBerrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 863 (9th Cir.1985) ("We are not saying that the petitioner should not have been transported to Florida. That is within the province of the Attorney General to decide."); Sasso v. Milhollan, 735 F.Supp. 1045, 1046 (S.D.Fla.1990) (holding that the Attorney General has discretion over location of detention). Sinclair v. Attorney General of U.S., 198 F. Appx 218, 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006). See also Calla-Collado v. Attorney General of U.S., 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011) ("Congress has vested the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") with authority to enforce the nation's immigration laws. Thus, as a part of DHS, ICE 'necessarily has the authority to determine the location of detention of an alien in deportation proceedings and therefore, to transfer aliens from one detention center to another.'") (quoting Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Bd. Of Immigration Appeals, 44 F.3d 1251, 1256 (4th Cir. 1995)). Therefore, because this Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin Respondents from transferring Petitioner, it will DENY Petitioner's request for a T.R.O./P.I. as he seeks to reverse his transfer to another facility. Additionally, Petitioner's request for immediate release goes beyond the "limited nature of a [T.R.O.]" and instead requests "mandatory, affirmative relief[,]" which may not be afforded via a T.R.O. Hope v. Warden York County Prison (Hope I), 956 F.3d 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2020) (finding that where the district court purported to enter an ex parte T.R.O. but directed the release of twenty petitioners, the "relief altered the status quo, exceeding the temporary and limited nature of a [T.R.O.]") (citing Granny Goose Foods Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). Petitioner's requests based on the merits of his Petition will be addressed in due course.Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 4/30/2026. 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: 04/30/2026)

Apr 30, 2026

Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO

Apr 30, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 11 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. Multiple relief motion filed requesting only a relief. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Attorney advised that in the future all documents of that nature are to be filed separately. Clerk docketed Brief in Support. Filer to select all relief types sought when filing the Motion event. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. (kss)

Apr 30, 2026

W/ 11 BRIEF in Support re 11 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by JOSE JOEL ORELLANA CRUZ. (kss)

#13

May 01, 2026

Order

#14

May 01, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)

#15

May 06, 2026

Enforce

May 10, 2026

Order