District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11506

#1

Mar 30, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11644567 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Walter Juventino Morales Saldivar. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Nader, Eliana) (Main Document 1 replaced on 3/31/2026, with blank pages removed. Attachment 1 replaced on 3/31/2026 with form instructions page removed.) (FGD). (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#2

Mar 31, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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. (LBO) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

#3

Mar 31, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

#4

Mar 31, 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). (SEC) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Apr 14, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Apr 14, 2026

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

#7

Apr 17, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Walter Juventino Morales Saldivar ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 6, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.Factual Background.Petitioner is a thirty-year-old noncitizen from Guatemala currently detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 17, 24. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on approximately July 4, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 1, 24. On or about March 30, 2026, Petitioner was detained by ICE. Id. ¶¶ 3, 28. Petitioner was taken to the ICE Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts, and the Petition alleges, on information and belief, that Petitioner is detained there. Id. ¶¶ 3-5, 29.Petitioner alleges that his detention is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. ¶ 11. Petitioner contends that his detention without a bond hearing is, therefore, unlawful, including because it violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, id. ¶¶ 35-49, and is contrary to statute, id. ¶¶ 30-34. The Petition also includes counts asserting violations of the Fourth Amendment, id. ¶¶ 50-52, and a statute regarding immigration arrests, id. ¶¶ 53-54, but does not include any factual allegations supporting those counts. Petitioner seeks a bond hearing. Id. ¶ 13. Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 9. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context"). Although Respondents "note that Petitioner failed to name his immediate custodian" because Petitioner is currently detained at Plymouth County Correctional Facility, D. 6 at 1 & n.1, they do not suggest that Petitioner was detained there at the time the Petition was filed. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004) (explaining that "when the [g]overnment moves a habeas petitioner after []he properly files a petition naming [his] immediate custodian, the District Court retains jurisdiction") (internal citation omitted). Consistent with this Court's prior rulings, including and not limited to Da Silva v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025), and Dias de Carvalho v. Hyde, 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14, the Court agrees with Petitioner that his custody is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determinations of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), as Respondents contend, see D. 6 at 2 n.3; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). Respondents submit that this Court's decision in Dias de Carvalho is likely dispositive here. See D. 6 at 1-2. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In a footnote, Respondents suggest that "[a]lternatively, this Court should dismiss" the Petition because of Petitioner's professed membership of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS. D. 6 at 2 n.3; see D. 1 ¶ 11 (alleging that Petitioner is a class member). The Court declines to determine the effect of the declaratory relief in Guerrero Orellana on this case in light of its independent determination regarding Petitioner's entitlement to a bond hearing. See, e.g., Oliveira Batista v. Hyde, No. 26-cv-10195-FDS (D. Mass. Jan. 27, 2026), D. 9 at 2 n.2 (similar).Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41, which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. (SEC) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

Order

#8

Apr 24, 2026

Status Report

#9

Apr 28, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In light of the recent status report, D. 8, the Petition is dismissed and this case shall be closed. (SEC) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

#10

Apr 28, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (SEC) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

Apr 28, 2026

Order