Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00328

#1

Feb 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number 300000933), filed by OSCAR DE JESUS PERDOMO-RINCON. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt, # 2 Envelope) (cel) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#2

Feb 26, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Order to Show Cause by OSCAR DE JESUS PERDOMO-RINCON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Table of Contents, # 3 Tab A, # 4 Tab B, # 5 Tab C, # 6 Tab D, # 7 Tab E, # 8 Tab F, # 9 Tab G, # 10 Envelope) (cel) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan added. (cel)

#3

Feb 27, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Copies of this order and the Petition were emailed by the Court to the USAO. This email service is deemed sufficient to accomplish formal service of the Petition on Respondent. Respondent's counsel shall file a notice of appearance within 3 days of this date. Respondent shall file any responses or answers to the petition within 30 days of the date of service. Petitioner's reply is due within 5 days of Respondents' response. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 2/27/2026. (pak) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#4

Feb 27, 2026

ORDER re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Order to Show Cause. First, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as to Petitioner seeking to enjoin Respondent(s) from transferring him to another detention facility. Petitioner, a native of Venezuela, is currently detained at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center. 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. Att'y Gen., 198 F. App'x 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. Att'y 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). Consistent with this authority, this Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to enjoin Petitioner's transfer. Second, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Order to Show Cause requiring Respondent(s) to show cause why the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. The Court construes Petitioner's Motion as invoking 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. Finally, the Court will review the remaining portions of Petitioner's 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as a request for a preliminary injunction because Petitioner has not met the procedural requirements of a TRO. Specifically, Petitioner is requesting affirmative relief rather than maintenance of the status quo, and therefore Petitioner's request goes beyond the limited, temporary nature of a TRO and requires giving Respondent(s) notice and an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the request for a TRO is DENIED, and Petitioner and Respondent(s) are directed to the Court's case management order at ECF 3 . Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 2/27/2026. 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: 02/27/2026)

Feb 27, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Show Cause

Mar 12, 2026

Order for Administrative Case Closing