Eastern District of New York • 2:26-cv-01424

#1

Mar 11, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-19994573, filed by Nilson Molina Lara. Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes (Austin, Paige) Modified on 3/12/2026 (LJ). (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#2

Mar 11, 2026

Civil Cover Sheet.. by Nilson Molina Lara (Austin, Paige) Modified on 3/12/2026 (LJ). (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#3

Mar 11, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Harold A. Solis on behalf of Nilson Molina Lara (aty to be noticed) (Solis, Harold) Modified on 3/12/2026 (LJ). (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#4

Mar 12, 2026

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (LJ) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#5

Mar 12, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Upon review of Petitioner Nilson Molina Lara's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. 1), it is hereby ordered that:1. Respondents shall, by 12 p.m. on March 17, 2026, show cause in writing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued and why Petitioner should not be immediately released. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If Respondents contend that Petitioner is detained under a statute other than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), their response must state what facts, if any, distinguish Petitioner's case from the vast majority of district court cases that have disagreed with Respondents' contention. See Barco Mercado v. Francis, F. Supp. 3d., No. 25-CV-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4, *1314 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (collecting cases). In particular, Respondents are directed to state:a. What distinguishes Petitioner's case from the numerous other cases in which the petitioner, who had resided in the United States for several years, was found to be improperly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 9); Padilla Molina v. DeLeon, No. 25-CV-6526 (JMA), 2025 WL 3718728, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2025) (compiling cases).b. What distinguishes Petitioner's case from other cases in this District finding unconstitutional the re-detainment, without proper notice or opportunity to be heard, of an individual who was placed in the least restrictive setting by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 9); see R.A.R.R. v. Almodovar, No. 25-CV-6597 (PKC), 2026 WL 323040 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2026).c. The basis for Petitioner's initial stop on March 11, 2026, which Petitioner alleges was unlawfully race-based. (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 13; see also id. ¶¶ 39–40); Escobar Molina v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 25-CV-3417 (BAH), --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 3465518, at *13 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2025) (drawing from Fourth Amendment standard and granting preliminary injunction upon finding likelihood of plaintiffs' success on the merits, where plaintiffs challenged Department of Homeland Securitys practice of warrantless arrests on statutory grounds).Finally, Respondents are directed to include "affidavits and exhibits... to establish the lawfulness and correct duration of Petitioner's detention in light of the issues raised in the habeas petition." See Belqui M. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-0308 (MJD/SGE), 2026 WL 185203, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026), R&R adopted, 2026 WL 194071 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026).2. To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling on the Petition, Respondents are restrained from removing Petitioner from the United States until further order of this Court. See M.K. v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-1935 (JMF), 2025 WL 750599, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (collecting cases ordering same).3. Furthermore, considering Petitioner's interest in participating in proceedings before this Court and maintaining adequate access to legal counsel, Respondents are restrained from transferring Petitioner to a facility outside of this District absent further order of this Court. See Samb v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-6374 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025) (Dkt. 3) (collecting cases ordering same); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (empowering courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/12/2026. (EB) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Quality Control Check - Summons

Mar 12, 2026

A summons was not issued for one of the following reasons: No summons provided, please submit summons. The event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (LJ)

Mar 12, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (LJ)

Mar 12, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#6

Mar 17, 2026

Letter

#7

Mar 18, 2026

Reply in Support

#8

Mar 18, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#9

Mar 18, 2026

Memorandum & Opinion

#10

Mar 19, 2026

Letter

#11

Mar 19, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#12

Mar 25, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Mar 25, 2026

Order(Other)

Mar 25, 2026

ORDER: The 11 Clerk's Judgment having been entered in error, it is hereby ordered that said Clerk's Judgment is vacated and its PDF is stricken from the record. A corrected judgment shall issue. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/25/2026. (FA)