District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13177

#1

Oct 28, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11326058 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Wilbert Charles. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form Category Form)(Pomerleau, Todd) (Entered: 10/28/2025)

#2

Oct 28, 2025

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (BAH) (Entered: 10/28/2025)

#3

Oct 29, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Angel Kelley 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. (LBO) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

#4

Oct 29, 2025

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. (CEH) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

#5

Oct 29, 2025

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to AUSA Julien Mundele, Rayford Farquhar, Elona Toro, and USAMA Civil Process on 10/29/2025 at 9:38 AM. (CEH) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

#6

Oct 29, 2025

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition mailed to All Respondents on 10/29/2025. (CEH) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

#7

Oct 29, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (CEH) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

Oct 29, 2025

Copy Mailed

Oct 29, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#8

Oct 30, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#9

Oct 30, 2025

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

#10

Nov 04, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#11

Feb 03, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On review of the Petition and Response, the Parties are directed to submit supplemental briefing limited to addressing the applicability of each sub-provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1) to Petitioner. Petitioner is ORDERED to submit a memorandum by February 17, 2026. Respondent is ORDERED to submit a reply by March 3, 2026.(CEH) (Entered: 02/03/2026)

Feb 03, 2026

Order

#12

Feb 04, 2026

Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance

#13

Feb 17, 2026

Response to Court Order

#14

Mar 27, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Petitioner Wilbert Charles’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his detention and denial of a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [Dkt. 1]. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. As to Petitioner’s challenge to his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), Respondents concede that this case is “materially similar” [Dkt. 9 at 8] to Amaya Sanchez v. Moniz et al., No. 25-CV-12806-AK (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2025) [Dkt. 10], in which the Court joined other sessions of this Court, and other courts across the country, in holding that the arrest and detention of noncitizens within the United States is not governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) but rather, the discretionary bond hearing framework under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). On the facts before it, the Court does not find reason to deviate from the analysis presented in Amaya Sanchez. Thus, Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).As to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), that provision provides an exception to the otherwise discretionary bond hearing framework of § 1226(a) for noncitizens who are inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed certain enumerated offenses or acts. These include, but are not limited to, drug and human trafficking, prostitution, terrorism, sedition, aggravated felonies, and immigration-related offenses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1). Respondents contend that Petitioner’s prior state conviction for manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death triggers § 1226(c). [See Dkt. 9 at 1-2].The central issue the Court must address is whether § 1226(c) imposes mandatory detention in this case. Respondents do not identify which specific provision of § 1226(c) they believe applies to Petitioner; they did not cite a particular provision in their initial Response [see Dkt. 9], nor did they respond to the Court’s Order specifically directing the Parties to brief that issue [see Dkt. 13]. Without knowing which statutory provision Respondents rely on, the Court is not asked to apply a particular provision of § 1226(c)(1) to Petitioner’s facts or to review an existing removability determination. Instead, the Court is tasked only with determining the threshold issue of whether Respondents have articulated a lawful statutory basis for detention. This question falls squarely within the Court’s jurisdiction. Romero v. Hyde, 795 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D. Mass. 2025) (citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 281 (2018); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 533 n.4 (2021)) (recognizing that courts may hear “what legal authority govern[s] [a petitioner’s] detention and whether, as a result, [the petitioner] [i]s entitled to a bond hearing”).Moving to the merits, Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c) based on the record before the Court. Based on the facts alleged in the Petition—which Respondents’ Response incorporates in full [Dkt. 9 at 2]—none of the provisions enumerated in § 1226(c)(1) clearly applies to Petitioner. Nor have Respondents, as explained, articulated a specific basis justifying their authority to detain Petitioner under § 1226(c)(1). The Court thus finds that Respondents have waived any further argument on this topic for purposes of this Order. Accordingly, Petitioner is not subject to the mandatory detention framework of § 1226(c).Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition [Dkt. 1] is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) calendar days of this Order. The Parties are ORDERED to file a status report within fourteen (14) calendar days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted a bond hearing.(CEH) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Mar 27, 2026

Order