Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-00643

#1

Feb 04, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 USC 2241 filed by Marco Leonel Perez Flores. (mc) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.] (Entered: 03/01/2026)

Feb 04, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Landya B. McCafferty and US Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc. The case designation is: 1:26-cv-156-LM-TSM. Please show this number with the judge designation on all future pleadings. (mc) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.]

Feb 04, 2026

NOTICE of Filing - Case filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241. A copy of the petition has been electronically sent via ECF to your office. No further action is required by the United States Attorney unless directed by the presiding judge.(mc) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.]

Mar 01, 2026

NOTICE. This case has been designated for Electronic Case Filing. All further submissions shall be filed in compliance with the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing. Pro se litigants are not required to file electronically and may continue to file documents in paper format. Persons filing electronically are strongly encouraged to complete the interactive training modules available on the courts website. To access these modules, click HERE. (mc) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.]

Mar 01, 2026

NOTICE - Filing Fee Omitted. Either the filing fee of $5.00 or an application to proceed without fees or costs must be submitted within 60 days. If proceeding without prepayment of fees or costs is sought the court needs: Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs, Certificate of Custodial Institution. Compliance Deadline set for 4/30/2026. (mc) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.]

#2

Mar 02, 2026

ORDER Directing Clerk to Make Service. Respondents are directed to file an answer or dispositive motion in response to the Petition (Doc. No. 1) within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order. Respondents shall provide this court with at least 72 hours of advance notice of any scheduled removal or transfer of Petitioner out of this court's jurisdiction. Such notice shall be filed in writing on the docket of this proceeding and shall state the reasons for such action and why the move should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. So Ordered by US Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc.(de) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.] (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#3

Mar 04, 2026

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jesse L. Renauld-Smith on behalf of FCI Berlin, Warden, US Attorney General, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Boston Field Office Director Attorney Jesse L. Renauld-Smith added to party FCI Berlin, Warden(pty:res), Attorney Jesse L. Renauld-Smith added to party US Attorney General(pty:res), Attorney Jesse L. Renauld-Smith added to party US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Boston Field Office Director(pty:res).(Renauld-Smith, Jesse) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.] (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 2026

SERVICE BY CLERK: Copies mailed / delivered / emailed to All Respondents.(de) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.]

#4

Mar 30, 2026

RESPONSE re 2 Order Directing Service,, filed by FCI Berlin, Warden, US Attorney General, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Boston Field Office Director. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Renauld-Smith, Jesse) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.] (Entered: 03/30/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

ENDORSED ORDER. Text of Order: Charitably construed, the petition alleges that the bond hearing conducted pursuant to the order of the Western District of New York failed to comply with the requirements of due process. See Perez Flores v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-306-LJV, 2025 WL 1921748 (W.D.N.Y. July 14, 2025). The Western District of New York itself found that the petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing as a matter of due process, and set forth requirements for the bond hearing it ordered. See id. At *7-8. This court finds that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this petition to the Western District of New York, as that court will be better suited to determine whether the bond hearing provided the petitioner with the process that court found constitutionally due. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); see also Desmond v. Nynex Corp., No. 94-1230, 1994 WL 577479, at *3 (1st Cir. 1994) ("It is well settled that a court may transfer a case sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a)...."); RKCJ, LLC v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, No. 3:21-cv-2597, 2022 WL 1050313, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2022) (observing that courts generally lack authority to enforce the order of another court). Accordingly, this case is hereby transferred to the Western District of New York. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(de) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.]

Mar 31, 2026

Civil Case Terminated. (de) [Transferred from nhd on 4/1/2026.]

#5

Apr 01, 2026

Case transferred in from District of New Hampshire; Case Number 1:26-cv-00156. (Entered: 04/01/2026)

Apr 01, 2026

Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. Remark: Plaintiff has been mailed a pro se packet including a privacy notice, consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, Civil Case Timeline, Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Authorization Form. (JLH)

Apr 01, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to Chambers of electronic case transfer. (JLH)

#6

Apr 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Marco Leonel Perez Flores.The pro se petitioner, Marco Leonel Perez Flores, filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court on April 7, 2025. See Perez Flores v. Bondi, 2025 WL 1921748, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. July 14, 2025). In that case, Perez Flores argued that his "ongoing detention violate[d] the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Id. at *2. This Court granted his petition in part, holding that Perez Flores was detained under section 1226(c) and that "under the Mathews framework, Perez Flores's continued detention absent a bond hearing [indeed] violate[d] the Due Process Clause." Id. at *7. The Court ordered the government to release Perez Flores unless he received a bond hearing at which "a neutral decisionmaker conduct[ed] an individualized hearing to determine whether Perez Flores's continued detention [wa]s justified." Id. at *8. At that hearing, "the government [would have] the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that Perez Flores's continued detention [wa]s necessary to serve a compelling regulatory purpose, such as minimizing risk of flight or danger to the community." Id. Moreover, in deciding whether to release Perez Flores, the Immigration Judge was to consider "whether a less-restrictive alternative to detention would also address the government's interests." Id. Perez Flores received a two-part bond hearing on July 22, 2025, and July 24, 2025, see id. at *3, but he was denied bond and remains in ICE custody, see generally id. On February 4, 2026, Perez Flores filed a second petition, this time in the District of New Hampshire where he is currently being held. Docket Item 1 at 1. In his new petition, he argues that his July 2025 bond hearing did not comport with due process requirements. Id. at 6. More specifically, he says that his bond hearing was not conducted by a neutral and independent decisionmaker and that he was not given a "meaningful opportunity" to demonstrate why he should not remain in custody. Id. The District of New Hampshire has since transferred this case to this Court because it found that this Court "will be better suited to determine whether the bond hearing provided the petitioner with the process th[is C]ourt found constitutionally due." See Docket Item 5.Because Perez Flores's new petition alleges that his bond hearing did not comport with due process and this Court's prior order and does not raise any new claims, the Court is inclined to construe the petition as a motion to enforce this Court's prior order in Perez Flores, 2025 WL 1921748, at *8. If the petitioner believes that there is any reason why this Court should not construe his new petition as such, he shall show cause by 4/16/2026. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 4/2/2026. (DDC)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 04/02/2026)