District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11431

#1

Mar 25, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11632710 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Delvy Antonio Lora Nunez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Lazo, Margie) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#2

Mar 25, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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 Paul G. Levenson. (CM) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#3

Mar 25, 2026

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (MBM) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#4

Mar 25, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#5

Mar 25, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition mailed to all respondents on 3/25/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

Mar 25, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Mar 25, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Mar 26, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Mar 26, 2026

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

#8

Apr 06, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner alleges that the Immigration Judge “incorrectly found that there was no jurisdiction in his case” at his second bond hearing. Dkt. 1 para. 11. However, Respondents’ filing indicates that the Immigration Judge denied bond at both bond hearings on the merits, that is because Petitioner was found to be “a danger to the community.” Dkt. 7 -1 at 1, 3. Accordingly, Petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before April 10, 2026, for why this Petition should not be denied. (MBM) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

Apr 06, 2026

Order

#9

Apr 07, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#10

Apr 08, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Neither party disputes that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), under which “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” Dkt. 7 at 2; Dkt. 9 at 5. As part of their answer to the Petition, the Court ordered Respondents to include, “at least, copies of any Notices to Appear, Warrants for Arrest of Alien, or Notices of Custody Determination issued in connection with Petitioner’s current detention.” Dkt. 4 at 2. Respondents did not include with their answer any “warrant issued by the Attorney General,” as would be required under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a). See Dkt. 7 . Respondents are therefore directed to provide the Court such warrant by Thursday, April 9, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. Otherwise, the Court will find that Petitioner’s detention does not satisfy the requirements for detention under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a) and Petitioner will be ordered released. (MBM) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

Apr 08, 2026

Order

#11

Apr 09, 2026

RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Pamela Bondi, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Todd M Lyons, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin re 10 Order,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#12

Apr 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his bond determination. Dkt. 9 at 7. “[F]or someone in Petitioner’s position, there are effectively two options: he can either directly attack some part of the bond process, for example, by ‘point[ing] to the language of the immigration judge’s opinion,’ or else he can inferentially argue that ‘the evidence itself could not – as a matter of law – have supported the immigration judge’s decision.’” Miti v. Moniz, 2026 WL 884639, at *6 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2026) (quoting Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019)).The immigration judge found that “Respondent is a danger to the community based on his criminal history.” Dkt. 7 -1 at 3. Therefore, Petitioner must show that as a matter of law, no reasonable immigration judge could have found that evidence proved by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community. See Miti, 2026 WL 884639, at *6; Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019). Here, Respondents presented to the immigration judge evidence of an arrest for armed robbery in which Petitioner allegedly stole two cell phones at knifepoint. Dkt. 7 -2 at 1. Even assuming this charge was dismissed as Petitioner contends, Dkt. 9 at 7, the police report states that, when asked about the incident, Petitioner “confirmed that he took two cell phones from [the alleged victim], directed police to the location of the stolen phones, and explained during booking that the victim “owed him $700 and so he took both of his phones,” Dkt. 7 -2 at 6-7. Therefore, a reasonable jurist could have found that, notwithstanding the dismissal of the charge, Petitioner committed a violent crime. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence is not insufficient as a matter of law, and the Petition is DENIED.(MBM) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#13

Apr 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT... In accordance with this Court’s Order (ECF #12) issued on April 9, 2026, denying the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED: Judgment for the Respondents against the Petitioner. (MBM) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

Apr 09, 2026

Order