Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00558

#1

Mar 28, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9463697), filed by ANTHOLYN APOLINAR RODRIGUEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit ICE Locator, # 3 Exhibit 212d5 parole) (Cardenas, Veronica) (Entered: 03/28/2026)

#2

Mar 28, 2026

MOTION for attorney Veronica Cardenas to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $70, Receipt # APAWDC-9463701) by ANTHOLYN APOLINAR RODRIGUEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Dist Ct Good Standing, # 3 Exhibit NY Cert of Good Standing, # 4 Exhibit NJ Cert of Good Standing) (Cardenas, Veronica) (Entered: 03/28/2026)

#3

Mar 28, 2026

Proposed Order re 2 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, by ANTHOLYN APOLINAR RODRIGUEZ. (Cardenas, Veronica) (Entered: 03/28/2026)

#4

Mar 28, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by ANTHOLYN APOLINAR RODRIGUEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cardenas, Veronica) (Entered: 03/28/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan added. (cel)

#5

Apr 01, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#6

Apr 01, 2026

Case Management Order

#7

Apr 01, 2026

ORDER denying 4 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Petitioner requests an order requiring Respondents to show cause why the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. Petitioner invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which 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 5 Case Management Order requiring Respondents to respond to the Petition within 30 days of service, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 4 Motion for Order to Show Cause is DENIED. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 4/1/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 04/01/2026)

#8

Apr 01, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ANTHOLYN APOLINAR RODRIGUEZ (Cardenas, Veronica) (Entered: 04/01/2026)

Apr 01, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause

#9

Apr 03, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Barbara Kiley Doolittle on behalf of BRIAN MCSHANE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO. (Doolittle, Barbara) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#10

Apr 30, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by BRIAN MCSHANE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO. (Doolittle, Barbara) Modified text on 4/30/2026. (cel) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

#11

May 01, 2026

ORDER. For the reasons stated in Villagrez v. Bondi, et al., No. 26-72, 2026 WL 545380 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2026) (Ranjan, J.), the Court GRANTS the 1 habeas petition. Additionally, to the extent that the government argues that the presence of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) subjects Petitioner to mandatory detention, the Court disagrees. See Qasemi v. Francis, No. 25-CV-10029 (LJL), 2025 WL 3654098, at *1011, 13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025) (finding that Section 1182(d)(5)(A)'s language of "returned to the custody from which he was paroled" refers to DHS's control over Petitioner, not the prior detention status to which Petitioner was subjected to at an earlier time). The Court ISSUES the writ, on these terms. (1) Respondents shall cause Petitioner to be taken to a neutral immigration judge of the Executive Office of Immigration Review for an individualized bond hearing to occur within 30 days of this order, or else release Petitioner by such date. (2) Respondents shall ensure that such a hearing include the required due process, i.e., at a minimum, factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to Petitioner; an opportunity to make arguments on the Petitioner's behalf; and the right to an individualized determination of Petitioner's interests. See Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022). (3) Petitioner shall be responsible for securing the necessary transcripts and record of the bond hearing. The Court further finds that Respondents' position was substantially justified in this case, so no fees shall be awarded. The Court trusts the immigration judge to comply with this order and ensure that Petitioner is provided due process, and therefore the immigration judge shall explain his or her individualized determination on the record. See Kamara v. Atty Gen. of U.S., 420 F.3d 202, 212 (3d Cir. 2005). The Clerk of Court shall administratively CLOSE this case Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 5/1/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#12

May 01, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT, entered consistent with the above order (ECF 11). Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 5/1/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

May 01, 2026

Order

May 01, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)