Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00335

#1

Feb 27, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9394629), filed by MEHMET GUCLU. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Casazza, Christopher) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#2

Feb 27, 2026

MOTION for attorney Christopher M. Casazza to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $70, Receipt # APAWDC-9394632) by MEHMET GUCLU. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Christopher M. Casazza, # 2 Exhibit A, Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order) (Casazza, Christopher) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#3

Mar 03, 2026

Errata re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Civil Cover Sheet by MEHMET GUCLU. Reason for Correction: Civil Cover Sheet. (Casazza, Christopher) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

Mar 03, 2026

Judge Stephanie L. Haines added. (rjr)

Mar 03, 2026

CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ERROR: Form improperly completed. Filer did not select a Nature of Suit or a Basis of Jurisdiction on the Civil Cover Sheet. CORRECTION: Filer to resubmit properly completed form using the Errata event, linking the document to the previous entry. (rjr)

#4

Mar 05, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#5

Mar 20, 2026

Case Management Order

#6

Mar 20, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Compliance re 5 Case Management Order by Christopher M Casazza on behalf of MEHMET GUCLU (Casazza, Christopher) Document link added. Modified text on 3/20/2026. (tla) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

#7

Mar 24, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Carl J Spindler on behalf of LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T ROSE. (Spindler, Carl) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#8

Apr 17, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Spindler, Carl) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#9

May 15, 2026

Order

#10

May 15, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)

#11

May 22, 2026

NOTICE JOINT by LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE re 9 Order, (Spindler, Carl) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#12

Jun 17, 2026

Enforce

#13

Jun 18, 2026

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule- Petitioner having filed a Motion to Enforce Order (ECF No. 12), the Court hereby orders that Respondents shall respond to this Motion on or before 7/2/26. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 6/18/26. 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: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#14

Jun 22, 2026

NOTICE of Substitution of Attorney Appearance by Jacqueline C. Brown on behalf of LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. Attorney Carl J Spindler (former AUSA) terminated. (Brown, Jacqueline) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#15

Jun 29, 2026

RESPONSE to Motion re 12 MOTION to Enforce 9 Order filed by LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Brown, Jacqueline) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

#16

Jul 14, 2026

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Enforce. 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 posed a flight risk and denied bond. Petitioner now moves to enforce the Courts Order. 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). Petitioner does not challenge his bond hearing on the basis that it failed to comport with due process. The Court holds that there is no merit to Petitioners Motion. It has no jurisdiction to review the substantive determination of the immigration judges and sees no violation of due process. The Motion to Enforce Order is denied.. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 7/14/26. 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: 07/14/2026)

Jul 14, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce