Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00537

#1

Mar 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9458453), filed by YONI MARTINEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ICE Locator Results, # 2 Exhibit EOIR Online Case Status, # 3 Appendix Exhibit List, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet JS-44) (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#2

Mar 26, 2026

BRIEF in Support of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by YONI MARTINEZ. (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#3

Mar 26, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by YONI MARTINEZ. (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#4

Mar 26, 2026

BRIEF in Support re 3 Motion for Order to Show Cause filed by YONI MARTINEZ. (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#5

Mar 26, 2026

MOTION for attorney JASON SCOTT CAMILO to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $70, Receipt # APAWDC-9458569) by YONI MARTINEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission, # 2 Exhibit NJ Cert of Good Standing, # 3 Exhibit DNJ Cert of Good Standing, # 4 Proposed Order) (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

Mar 26, 2026

Judge Stephanie L. Haines added. (bmh)

#6

Apr 01, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#7

Apr 02, 2026

Case Management Order

#8

Apr 02, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & COMPLIANCE by YONI MARTINEZ re 7 Case Management Order,,,,, (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

#9

Apr 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER. ORDER DENYING 3 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Petitioner has filed a (proposed) order at this docket entry. This filing is confounding and procedurally deficient. The Court will construe the docket as an entry requesting an order requiring Respondents to show cause why the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2243, provides that "[a] court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." Section 2243 further provides that "[t]he writ, or order to show cause... shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed." Courts within this Circuit have found that Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings ("Habeas Rules"), applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas Rules, provides more flexible time limits for ordering an answer and supersedes the time limits of § 2243 to the extent there is a conflict. See Alvierez v. Bondi et al., Civil Action No. 26-532 (JXN), 2026 WL 146013, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2026)(collecting cases). This Court agrees. Accordingly, in light of the Court's 7 Case Management Order requiring Respondents to respond to the Petition within 30 days of service, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 3 Motion for Order to Show Cause is DENIED. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 4/2/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (cag) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

Apr 02, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause

#10

Apr 03, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Carolyn J. Bloch on behalf of PAMELA BONDI, TODD LYONS, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO. (Bloch, Carolyn) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#11

Apr 19, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Due to Petitioner's Hospitalization by YONI MARTINEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ICE Locator Results, # 2 Exhibit Emails from Moshannon Valley PC to Counsel, # 3 Exhibit EOIR Hearing Notice, # 4 Appendix Exhibit List, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Certificate of Service) (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 04/19/2026)

#12

Apr 19, 2026

BRIEF in Support re 11 Motion for TRO, filed by YONI MARTINEZ. (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 04/19/2026)

#13

Apr 20, 2026

ORDER denying 11 Motion for TRO. ORDER. Petitioner's 11 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (T.R.O.) is DENIED. Much of the relief that Petitioner seeks in his Motion goes beyond the "limited nature of a [T.R.O.]" and instead requests "mandatory, affirmative relief[,]" which may not be afforded via a T.R.O. Hope v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 956 F.3d 156, 16162 (3d Cir. 2020) (finding that where the district court purported to enter an ex parte T.R.O. but directed the release of twenty petitioners, the "relief altered the status quo, exceeding the temporary and limited nature of a [T.R.O.]") (citing Granny Goose Foods Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). To the extent that Petitioner seeks redress that is the proper subject of a T.R.O., he has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits relative to those claims. (ECF No. 12); Hope v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 31920 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that a petitioner must show he is reasonably likely to prevail in the litigation in order to obtain a T.R.O.). Petitioner's generalized assertions that there is a legal foundation for the relief he seeks are insufficient-he must articulate how specific legal provisions support his claims if the Court is to potentially afford him emergency relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioners Motion at ECF No. 11. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 4/20/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nsk) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

Apr 20, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#14

Apr 22, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by PAMELA BONDI, TODD LYONS, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Bloch, Carolyn) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#15

May 11, 2026

STATUS REPORT re Petitioner's Hospitalization and Immigration Proceedings by YONI MARTINEZ. (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#16

May 13, 2026

Order

#17

May 13, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)

#18

May 20, 2026

NOTICE of Bond Determination Hearing Outcome by PAMELA BONDI, TODD LYONS, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Bloch, Carolyn) (Entered: 05/20/2026)

#19

May 24, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#20

May 24, 2026

BRIEF in Support re 19 Motion to Enforce Judgment, filed by YONI MARTINEZ. (Camilo, Jason) (Entered: 05/24/2026)

#21

May 26, 2026

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 19 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Respondents' Brief in Opposition due by 6/16/2026. Respondents shall include with their Brief a transcript of the bond hearing before the Immigration Judge. Any Reply brief due by 6/23/2026. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 5/26/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nsk) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#25

Jul 01, 2026

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Enforce Judgment. The Court granted Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered that he be provided an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). (ECF No. 16). He received the ordered hearing. The immigration judge determined that Petitioner failed to establish he is not a flight risk and denied bond. (ECF No. 18-1 at 1). Petitioner now moves to enforce the Court's Order. (ECF No. 19). In resolving Petitioner's Motion, the Court begins by observing that 8 U.S.C. 1226(e) specifically provides that no court ''may set aside any action or decision... under this section regarding the detention of any alien or the revocation or denial of bond or parole.'' This provision divests district courts of the jurisdiction to reexamine the bond decisions of immigration judges. Nevertheless, two (unpublished) decisions of the Third Circuit have held that a district court may examine an alien's bond hearing to determine whether it fell below the minimum standards of due process. See Quinteras v. Warden Pike Cty. Corr. Fac., 784 Fed. Appx. 75 (3d Cir. 2019), and Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cty. Corr. Fac., 2022 WL 574624 (3d Cir. 2022). In this case, there is no question that Petitioner received a bond hearing, as ordered. There is, likewise, no question that the stated reason for denial of bond was the determination that he poses a flight risk. This determination is unreviewable under 8 USC 1226(e). The Court holds that there is no merit to Petitioner's Motion. (ECF No. 19). The Court has no jurisdiction to review the substantive determination of the immigration judges and, upon review of the relevant filings in this case, sees no violation of due process. Indeed, the Court finds that Petitioner's Motion ultimately boils down to a disagreement with the IJ's bond decision, a decision that this Court lacks jurisdiction to reexamine. The Court therefore denies Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Judgment at ECF No. 19. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 7/1/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nsk) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment