Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-00499

#1

Mar 17, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Envelope)(LB) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#2

Mar 17, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Evi Noe Hernandez Cruz, filed by Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado. (LB) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#3

Mar 17, 2026

MOTION STAY OF REMOVAL and MOTION TO PREVENT TRANSFER as to Evi Noe Hernandez Cruz, filed by Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado. (Attachments: # 1 Mtn to Prevent Transfer)(LB) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#4

Mar 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado, 3 MOTION STAY OF REMOVAL and MOTION TO PREVENT TRANSFER filed by Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado. To maintain the status quo, and solely so that the Court can make an informed decision about its authority to issue relief and whether any relief that it has the power to issue should be granted, the respondents are temporarily enjoined from removing the petitioner from the United States. Additionally, so that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings, the respondents also are enjoined from transferring the petitioner to any district outside the Western District of New York. See Perez y Perez v. Noem, 2025 WL 1908284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (collecting cases). The Court will issue a subsequent order regarding the petition and the government's response. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 3/17/2026. (RFI)This was mailed to: Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado and Evi Noe Hernandez Cruz. (Entered: 03/17/2026)

Mar 17, 2026

Filing fee received: $ 5, receipt number 100009185. (LB)

Mar 17, 2026

Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. Clerk mailed to petitioner the Prisoner Pro Se Packet, consisting of Privacy Notice, Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge, and Civil Case Timeline. (LB)

#5

Mar 18, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado.The petitioner, Evi Noe Hernandez Cruz, is a civil immigration detainee currently held at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado, acting as his next friend, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket Item 1. An "[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting [o]n his behalf." 28 U.S.C. § 2242. "When the petition is brought by a person other than the one seeking relief, the 'next friend' must demonstrate that he or she has standing to act on the person's behalf." Chinnery by Connally Bey v. Spano, 2023 WL 316534, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2023). Without such standing, a court does not have jurisdiction to hear the petition. See Morais Filho on behalf of Moros v. Bondi, 2026 WL 61958, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2026); see also Wang v. City of New York, 2009 WL 705966, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009) ("When the application for habeas corpus filed by a would be next friend does not set forth an adequate reason or explanation of the necessity for resort to the next friend device, the court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition." (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)). "There are two prerequisites for next friend standing: (1) the next friend 'must provide an adequate explanation... why the real party in interest cannot appear on his [or her] own behalf to prosecute the action'; and (2) the next friend 'must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he [or she] seeks to litigate' and must 'have some significant relationship with the real party in interest.'" Iza by Iza v. Larocco, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 31378, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2026) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990)). Based on the petition, supporting affidavit, and identification documents, see Docket Items 1 and 1-1, Calix Maldonado satisfies the prerequisites for next friend standing. First, Hernandez Cruz cannot appear on his own behalf because he has limited access to documents while he is detained and because of language barriers. See Docket Item 1 ¶ 9. Second, Calix Maldonado is Hernandez Cruz's "spouse and the mother of his two U.S. citizen children" who is dedicated to her husband's best interest "without conflict." See id. ¶ 10.Because Calix Maldonado has standing, the Court addresses her petition on behalf of Hernandez Cruz. In Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2025), this Court held that noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are subject to detention under section 1226. The Court further held "that constitutional due process requires the government to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is either a danger to the community or a flight risk even at an initial bond hearing under section 1226(a)." Id. at 598. And in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2025 WL 3771228 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2025), this Court held that detention of noncitizens who have remained in the country following expiration of parole is under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not section 1225. It appears that the holding of Alvarez Ortiz or Cabrera Martinez—or both—may apply here. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 3/25/2026, why, in light of one or both of those decisions, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 3/18/2026. (DDC)This was mailed to: Lesly Johana Calix Maldonado and Evi Noe Hernandez Cruz. (Entered: 03/18/2026)