District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11122

#1

Mar 04, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11589050 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by J.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Madison, Kathryn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/4/2026: # 3 Unredacted Petition) (CM). (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#2

Mar 04, 2026

MOTION Motion to proceed pseudonymously by J.M..(Madison, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#3

Mar 04, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (CM) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/4/2026: # 1 Unredacted Stay Order) (CM). (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#4

Mar 04, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly C. Morgan on behalf of J.M. (Morgan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#5

Mar 05, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges. (CM) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#6

Mar 05, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 2 Motion to proceed pseudonymously by J.M. The Court ALLOWS the motion to proceed pseudonymously, D. 2, but reserves the right to revisit this issue as the case proceeds. (LMH) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#7

Mar 05, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#8

Mar 05, 2026

General Order 19-02

Mar 05, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Mar 05, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#9

Mar 12, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#10

Mar 18, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#11

Mar 19, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to 03/26/2026 to File Response/Reply as to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Michael Krol, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Kristi L. Noem, David Wesling. (LMH) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

Mar 19, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#12

Mar 26, 2026

Extension of Time to File Answer

#13

Mar 27, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), Michael Krol answer due 4/3/2026; Todd Lyons answer due 4/3/2026; Antone Moniz answer due 4/3/2026; Kristi L. Noem answer due 4/3/2026; David Wesling answer due 4/3/2026. (LMH) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Mar 27, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

#14

Apr 02, 2026

Amended Complaint

#15

Apr 10, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#16

Apr 13, 2026

Leave to File Document

#17

Apr 16, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 16 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (SEC) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

Apr 16, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

#18

Apr 24, 2026

Brief - not related to a motion

#19

May 12, 2026

Notice - Other

#20

May 14, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 14 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by J.M.. The Court has reviewed the amended petition of J.M. ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition"), D. 14, in which Petitioner contends that the bond hearing provided by Respondents did not comport with the due process requirements elucidated in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021), because the immigration judge relied upon Petitioner's criminal arrest and conviction in state court and the related police report, D. 14 ¶¶ 40-60, and that "the conditions of [their] confinement" violate their due process rights, id. ¶¶ 61-75. Having considered Petitioner's Petition, D. 14, the government's response, D. 15, and Petitioner's reply, D. 18, and the government’s supplemental filing, D. 19, the Court DENIES the Petition.As to Petitioner's challenge to their bond hearing, although the Court rejects Respondents' argument, D. 15 at 2-3, 6-12, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review a due process challenge to the immigration judge's bond determination, see, e.g., Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 142 (D. Mass. 2019) (noting that a court retains habeas jurisdiction to review compliance with its prior order conditionally granting habeas relief); Hernandez-Azuaje v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13224-ADB, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026) (explaining that "courts in the First Circuit have reviewed immigration judges' bond determinations for compliance with th[e] constitutionally mandated burden of proof [of clear and convincing evidence]"), Petitioner's argument that the immigration judge "failed to allocate the burden of proof" on the government because the immigration judge based its bond determination on the government's presentation of Petitioner's criminal conviction and the accompanying police reports and failed to properly consider Petitioner's evidence against dangerousness, D. 18 at 9-14, "is not [an argument] that [they] ha[ve] been denied due process" but rather "[a]t most [an] argu[ment] that the IJ's [dangerousness determination] was based on insufficient [] evidence." Dos Reis v. Vitello, No. 25-cv-10497-RGS, 2025 WL 1043434, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2025). "The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear such a challenge." Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144 (declining to hear petitioner's challenge to "the immigration judge's weighing of the evidence and exercise of discretion with respect to dangerousness"); see Dos Reis, 2025 WL 1043434, at *2 (similar as to flight risk determination). Nor can the Court conclude that "'the evidence itself could not -- as a matter of law -- have supported' the immigration judge's decision to deny bond." Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144 (internal citation omitted). Here, the immigration judge found that "the Department [] met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioner] is a danger to the community and that there is no alternative to detention" based on Petitioner's criminal conviction for an OUI and a detailed police report which indicated that during the traffic stop in response to the OUI call, Petitioner "had an open bottle" of alcohol, admitted that they were not sober to the police and that the Petitioner's BAC level "was extremely high." D. 14 ¶ 35; see D. 15-2; D. 19-1 at 4. The immigration judge further specified that it made its finding "notwithstanding [Petitioner's] letters of support and the support that [Petitioner] ha[d]" at the bond hearing. D. 14 ¶ 35; D. 19-1 at 4."Even though the Court might, on direct review (and with the benefit of more information and context), weigh this evidence differently, it cannot say that the immigration judge's conclusion that it amounted to clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness was 'so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process.'" Hernandez-Azuaje, 2026 WL 221833, at *2 (quoting Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144).As to Petitioner's challenge to "the conditions of [their] confinement," D. 14 ¶¶ 61-75; id. ¶ 65; see D. 18 at 18-22, habeas petitions "can be used only to request release from custody" and are "not appropriate vehicles to challenge the circumstances of confinement." Vasquez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp. 3d 177, 182 (D. Mass. 2025) (citing Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004); Dowey v. Maine, No. 15-cv-138-NT, 2015 WL 6123530, at *6 (D. Me. Oct. 16, 2015)). Here, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's challenge their conditions of confinement in the 2241 context. See Koehn v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 25-cv-11175-AK, 2025 WL 3194742, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 2025) (noting that “[a]s a general matter, section 2241 is the vehicle for challenging the fact of confinement” and cases cited).Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Petitioner's Petition, D. 14. (SEC) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#21

May 14, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

May 14, 2026

Order