Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00483

#1

Mar 19, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9442123), filed by MARVIN ARTURO GALEAS ALVARES. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Certificate of Service COS for Exhibits A-L) (Rogers, Peter) Modified text on 3/20/2026. (bjr) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

Mar 20, 2026

Judge William S. Stickman added. (bjr)

#2

Mar 21, 2026

Preliminary Injunction AND Temporary Restraining Order

#3

Mar 21, 2026

BRIEF in Support re 2 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by MARVIN ARTURO GALEAS ALVARES. (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 03/21/2026)

#4

Mar 22, 2026

Errata re 2 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction by MARVIN ARTURO GALEAS ALVARES. Reason for Correction: Factual Error in Motion. (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 03/22/2026)

#5

Mar 22, 2026

Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by MARVIN ARTURO GALEAS ALVARES. (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 03/22/2026)

#6

Mar 23, 2026

ORDER denying 5 Motion for TRO; denying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Petitioner Alvares is an alien who illegally entered the United States. He is now in custody at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center. He filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing, inter alia, that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 USC 1226, rather than subject to mandatory detention under 8 USC 1225. In the underlying immigration proceedings, Petitioner is seeking Cancellation of Removal under INA 240A(b), 8 USC 1229b(b). He has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and, later, an Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking: (1) an order staying the underlying proceedings on the Cancellation of Removal; (2) and order granting immediate release or a prompt bond hearing; and enjoining his transfer outside the Court's jurisdiction. The Court is compelled to deny all three requests.Petitioner's request for an injunction ordering immediate release or an immediate bond hearing seeks the same substantive relief sought by his Petition. It is affirmative relief, rather than the maintenance of the status quo. A TRO or preliminary injunction are not appropriate avenues for this type of relief. Rather, the Court will give prompt consideration to the merits of the Petition upon the expedited case management schedule that will issue forthwith.The Court lacks the authority to enjoin Petitioner's transfer. The place of an alien's detention is left to the discretion of the Attorney General and courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin a detainee's transfer. See Calla-Collado v. Attorney General of the US, 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011).Finally, the court holds that Petitioner has not demonstrated reasonable likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the request to enjoin or otherwise stay his underlying proceedings. As an initial matter, although somewhat of a novel issue, as posed, the Court has substantial doubts as to whether it has jurisdiction to stay proceedings on removal. 8 USC 1252(a)(2) divests district courts of jurisdiction over a broad area of matters relating to removal proceedings. The Court believes that this divestiture of jurisdiction would reasonably be found to bar a district court's stay of the substantive determination on, for example, Cancellation of Removal, until after a bond hearing. Further, the Court separately denies the requested TRO and injunctive relief because the basis for it is speculative, at best. Petitioner contends that if his Cancellation of Removal proceedings are adjudicated before his bond hearing, and if his request for cancellation is denied, then the immigration judge presiding over his bond hearing may use the denial as a basis for finding him to be a flight risk or otherwise not eligible for bond. This is too speculative. The Court, therefore, denies the Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge William S. Stickman on 3/23/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Stickman, William) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#7

Mar 23, 2026

ORDER denying as moot 2 Motion for TRO; denying as moot 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction In light of the Court's Order 6 on the Amended Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction, this Motion 2 is denied as moot.Signed by Judge William S. Stickman on 3/23/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Stickman, William) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#8

Mar 23, 2026

Case Management Order

Mar 23, 2026

Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO

#13

Mar 25, 2026

Order

#14

Mar 25, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)