Eastern District of New York • 2:26-cv-01833

#1

Mar 27, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-20051772, filed by Rolman Roberto Garcia Xicay. Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Goldman, Michael) Modified on 3/27/2026 (LJ). (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#2

Mar 27, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Rolman Roberto Garcia Xicay. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Goldman, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#3

Mar 27, 2026

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (LJ) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#4

Mar 27, 2026

Proposed Summons. by Rolman Roberto Garcia Xicay (Goldman, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Mar 27, 2026

Order Unrestricting Access to 463 Case. The clerk's office is directed to remove the restriction within this matter. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 3/27/2026. (EM)

Mar 27, 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 27, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. 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 27, 2026

Order(Other)

Mar 27, 2026

Order Unrestricting Access to 463 Case

Mar 27, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 27, 2026

ORDER: To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See, e.g., Loc. 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass'n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992) ("Once the district court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to, the litigation, the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] authorizes a federal court to protect that jurisdiction." (quotations omitted)); Garcia-Izquierdo v. Gartner, No. 04-CV-7377, 2004 WL 2093515, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 17, 2004) (observing that, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a district court "may order that a petitioner's deportation be stayed when a stay is necessary to preserve the Court's jurisdiction of the case"); Khalil v. Joyce, 771 F. Supp. 3d 268, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (barring the government from removing petitioner from the United States until the Court could address his claim); cf. Michael v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 657, 661-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the All Writs Act provides a federal court of appeals reviewing a final removal order with a basis to stay removal). And in addition, in light of Petitioner's interests in participating in further proceedings before this Court and in maintaining adequate access to legal counsel through these proceedings, it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall not be transferred except to a facility within this District, the Eastern District of New York, or the Southern District of New York, absent further order of this Court. See Ozturk v. Trump, 779 F. Supp. 3d 462, 496 (D. Vt. 2025) (ordering petitioner's transfer from Louisiana to Vermont due, in part, to her pending habeas petition), stay and mandamus denied, Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 403 (2d Cir. 2025). Respondents must inform the Court of Petitioner's current location, and must include information about any other locations where Petitioner has been held and the dates of any transfers since his initial detention, by March 30, 2026 at 9:00 A.M. Respondents must also file a response to the writ—including any legal or factual arguments why the writ should not be granted—by March 30, 2026 at 9:00 A.M. If Respondents believe this case is unique, and raises issues separate and apart from those raised in similar petitions, e.g., Rodriguez-Acurio v. Almodovar, -- F. Supp. 3d --, No. 25-CV-6065, 2025 WL 3314420, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2025), and as a result require additional time to provide some or all of the information requested, in lieu of responding at 9:00 A.M., they may file a request for additional time with a short explanation for why this case raises unique issues not previously decided. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 3/27/2026. (RB)

Mar 27, 2026

Quality Control Check - Summons

#5

Mar 30, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 30, 2026

Letter

#7

Mar 30, 2026

Summons Issued as to USA

#8

Mar 30, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause AND ~Util - Set Hearings

#9

Mar 30, 2026

Letter

Mar 30, 2026

1 - Terminate Hearings AND ~Util - Set Hearings

Mar 30, 2026

ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Petitioner's letter 9 . The Court's practice is not to hold Zoom conferences in any matter. That being said, to avoid Petitioner spending an extra week incarcerated as a result of his lawyer's travel schedule, the Court will, solely for this single appearance, permit Petitioner's counsel to appear remotely via Zoom for a rescheduled conference on April 1, 2026 at 10 A.M. The Court expects Petitioner's counsel to speak with Petitioner in advance of the conference as necessary to prepare him for the proceeding. Should counsel need the assistance of Respondents to arrange a telephone call with his client, he should contact them directly to do so. Separately, if Petitioner cannot read and write in English, Petitioner's counsel must arrange for an interpreter to be present at the hearing. Counsel for Respondents can inform the Court whether it is easier for all parties for the entire proceeding to be held via Zoom, including with Petitioner appearing remotely from 26 Federal Plaza. If that is the case, Respondents shall write to the Court by March 31, 2026 at 5 P.M. The Court will produce a Zoom link for use by the parties, counsel, and any suretor. Furthermore, the Court will email to the parties the relevant bail forms, which must be signed by Petitioner. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 3/30/2026. (RB)

#10

Mar 31, 2026

Letter

Mar 31, 2026

Order(Other)

Mar 31, 2026

ORDER: The Court will proceed as follows. Petitioner's counsel and the suretor may appear via Zoom. Petitioner and Respondents' counsel are directed to appear in person, with Respondents making arrangements for Petitioner's transportation to the Courthouse. The Court cannot accommodate remote interpretation. As a consequence, interpretation services must be provided in person. If Petitioner's counsel is unable to obtain an in-person interpreter, he should notify the Court via letter immediately. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 3/31/2026. (RB)

Apr 01, 2026

MINUTE ENTRY AND ORDER: An in-person hearing was held on 4/01/2026 before Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. Counsel for Petitioner (Michael Goldman) and counsel for the Federal Respondents (Marika Lyons) were present. Petitioner was present. For the reasons stated on the record, Petitioner is released on bail. Because Petitioner has been released on bail, Respondents are enjoined from detaining Petitioner absent further direction from this Court. Respondents may not use ICE ankle monitors or similar technology to monitor Petitioner, because that is not a condition imposed by the Court. The Court will hold an in-person hearing on 4/06/2026 at 12 P.M. in Courtroom 930 of the Central Islip Courthouse for Petitioner's suretor to be sworn. Petitioner's counsel is required to attend; Petitioner and Respondents' counsel are not required to attend. Petitioner's counsel is directed to advise the Court by 4/03/2026 at 12 P.M. if he cannot obtain an interpreter and one is required. Petitioner was informed that failure to secure a suretor by 4/06/2026 will result in revocation of bail. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 4/01/2026. (Court Reporter Marie Foley.) (RB)

Apr 01, 2026

~Util - Set Hearings

#12

Apr 06, 2026

Redacted Document

Apr 06, 2026

Status Conference

Apr 06, 2026

MINUTE ENTRY AND ORDER: An in-person hearing was held on 4/06/2026 before Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. Counsel for Petitioner (Michael Goldman) along with an interpreter and Petitioner's suretor were present. Case called. Suretor sworn, advised of the bond obligation by the Court and signed the bond. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court determine, the suretor is acceptable to the Court. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 4/6/2026. (Court Reporter Paul Lombardi.) (EM)

#13

Apr 20, 2026

Attorney Fees