District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11505

#1

Mar 30, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#2

Mar 30, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick 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 M. Page Kelley. (CEH) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#3

Mar 30, 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). (EZG) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

Mar 30, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#4

Mar 31, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Desire Luckenson appears to have recently filed two pro se habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241: one petition in docket number 26-cv-11395-LTS, and another in docket number 26-cv-11505-JEK. On March 25, 2026, Judge Sorokin granted Luckenson's petition in docket number 26-cv-11395-LTS and ordered him released by April 1, 2026 at 6:00pm if the respondents have not by that time provided him with a bond hearing. Accordingly, Luckenson is ORDERED to show cause by April 6, 2026 why his habeas petition filed in this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of the petition filed in his earlier case. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of this petition without prejudice. (jm) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

#5

Mar 31, 2026

A copy of the following was mailed to Desire Luckenson on 3/31/2026: 4 Electronic Order (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

Copy Mailed

Mar 31, 2026

Order

#6

Apr 01, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $ 5.00, receipt number 100015011 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (NVB) (Entered: 04/01/2026)

Apr 01, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#7

Apr 06, 2026

Show Cause

#8

Apr 06, 2026

Extension of Time

#9

Apr 08, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 8 MOTION for Extension of Time (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

#10

Apr 08, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#11

Apr 08, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to these individuals on 4/8/2026 - Antone Moniz: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 7 Motion to Show Cause for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 10 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal Desire Luckenson: docket sheet, 9 Electronic Order and 10 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

#12

Apr 08, 2026

Notice of Appearance

Apr 08, 2026

Copy Mailed

Apr 08, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#13

Apr 13, 2026

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

#14

Apr 14, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Desire Luckenson represents that, on March 30, 2026, he attended the bond hearing that was ordered in connection with his prior habeas petition in Desire v. Moniz, 26-cv-11395-LTS (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2026). ECF 7, ¶ 12. He further represents that he “didn’t get a notice of custody redetermination hearings from the immigration court till 3 P.M[.] after [he] had [his] court hearings in immigration” and “did not know [he] had a bond hearing coming” and thus could not prepare himself or evidence “to the court in support of [his] release.” Id. ¶ 14. Respondent Antone Moniz, for his part, asserts that “it is difficult to discern when [Luckenson] claims to have received . . . notice in relation to the bond hearing itself,” but he does not otherwise address whether or when the government provided notice of the bond hearing to Luckenson. ECF 13, at 2 n.2. These statements do not provide the Court with sufficient information to determine when Luckenson was given notice of his bond hearing or whether such notice gave him adequate time to prepare for the hearing. Accordingly, both parties are ORDERED to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed three pages, by April 20, 2026, addressing when Luckenson was notified about his March 30, 2026 bond hearing and whether that notice was constitutionally adequate under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#15

Apr 14, 2026

A copy of the following was mailed to Desire Luckenson on 4/14/2026: 14 Electronic Order (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

Apr 14, 2026

Copy Mailed

Apr 14, 2026

Order

#16

Apr 17, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#17

Apr 19, 2026

Response to Court Order

#18

Apr 20, 2026

Response to Motion

#19

Apr 22, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Desire Luckenson, a citizen of Haiti who entered the United States in March 2023, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on March 30, 2026 seeking a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF 1, at 6-7; ECF 1-1, at 1. That same day, however, Luckenson attended a bond hearing that was ordered in connection with an earlier habeas petition he filed in Desire v. Moniz, 26-cv-11395-LTS (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2026). See ECF 7, ¶ 12. At that hearing, the Immigration Judge denied Luckenson bond after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that he "is a danger to the community." ECF 12-1, Desire, 26-cv-11395-LTS. Luckenson claims the March 30 bond hearing violated his due process rights because he did not receive "a notice of custody redetermination hearings from the immigration court till 3 P.M[.] after [he] had [his] court hearings in immigration" and "did not know [he] had a bond hearing coming" and thus could not prepare himself or evidence "to the court in support of [his] release." ECF 7, ¶ 14; ECF 1, at 6. Because the parties' initial filings did not provide the Court with sufficient information to determine when Luckenson was given notice of his March 30 bond hearing or whether such notice gave him adequate time to prepare for the hearing, the parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing both issues. ECF 14; see ECF 1, ECF 7, ECF 13. Having considered both parties' supplemental briefs, ECF 17, ECF 18, the Court will deny Luckenson's petition. Where adequate notice is at issue, the focus of the Court's analysis is "whether the alien received the notice, rather than whether … ICE provided it." Kozak v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 34, 36 (1st Cir. 2007) (reviewing Immigration Judge's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen immigration proceedings due to inadequate notice of removal proceedings) (quotation marks omitted). For items sent by certified mail, there is a strong presumption of effective service, and rebutting the presumption requires "substantial and probative evidence." Id. (quotation marks omitted). But where, as here, notice was sent by regular mail, a weaker presumption of delivery applies and less is required to rebut it. See Dorce v. Garland, 50 F.4th 207, 218-19 (1st Cir. 2022) (Lipez, J., dissenting) (citing Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665, 672-673 (BIA 2008); ECF 17-1 (notice sent by regular mail to Luckenson via care of his custodial officer at Plymouth County Correctional Facility); ECF 17-2 (Immigration Court policies for serving detained aliens). Nonetheless, a petitioner claiming inadequate notice must offer some evidence to support his or her claim. See Kozak, 502 F.3d at 37. Such evidence can be difficult to obtain where, as here, ICE regulations permit service via regular mail. Id. at 36-37 (discussing relative ease of evaluating notice under prior regulations requiring in-person notice or certified mail). "In such a case, the only direct evidence of non-receipt may be an affidavit, signed and sworn by the alien, stating that he did not receive the notice." Id. at 37.The weaker presumption of delivery applies here. Evidence submitted by Moniz in his supplemental brief indicates that, in accordance with its policy for serving notice on detained noncitizens, the Immigration Court sent Luckenson notice of his March 30, 2026 custody redetermination hearing by regular mail on March 25, 2026, via Luckenson's custodial officer at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. See ECF 17-1; ECF 17-2, at 2-3. Luckenson, for his part, has provided "'no evidence at all to support his claim'" that the notice he received was inadequate. Kozak, 502 F.3d at 37 (quoting Sousa v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 271, 275 (1st Cir. 2005)). Absent from his petition or supplemental brief is any affidavit or other evidence attesting to his lack of notice or explaining how he knew to attend the March 30 hearing absent such notice. See ECF 7, ¶ 12. Accordingly, he has failed to rebut the presumption of delivery of notice of his bond hearing.Luckenson has already received the relief he seeks in his habeas petition in this case—namely, the bond hearing that was ordered in connection with his earlier habeas petition in Desire v. Moniz, 26-cv-11395-LTS (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2026). And he has failed to demonstrate any violation of his due process rights in connection with that March 30, 2026 bond hearing. Luckenson may, of course, proceed with his appeal of Immigration Court's denial of bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals.For the foregoing reasons, Luckenson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, is DENIED, and his Motion to Show Cause, ECF 7, is likewise DENIED. (EZG) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#20

Apr 22, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Apr 22, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions