Completed
Case Information
Filed: April 03, 2026
Assigned to:
Leo Theodore Sorokin
Referred to:
—
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause:
28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Completed: April 29, 2026
Last Activity:
April 29, 2026
Parties:
View All Parties →
Docket Entries
#1
Apr 03, 2026
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11655665 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Victor Henrique Nunes Carvalho. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Biagini, Luana) (Entered: 04/03/2026)
Main Document:
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241
#2
Apr 03, 2026
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (NMC) (Entered: 04/03/2026)
#3
Apr 03, 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). (FGD) (Entered: 04/03/2026)
Main Document:
General Order 19-02
#4
Apr 03, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Entered: 04/03/2026)
#5
Apr 03, 2026
Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 4/3/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 04/03/2026)
Apr 03, 2026
Copy Mailed
Apr 03, 2026
Notice of Case Assignment
#6
Apr 06, 2026
Notice of Appearance
Main Document:
Notice of Appearance
#7
Apr 06, 2026
Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241
Main Document:
Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241
#8
Apr 07, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. After reviewing the Petition and the Response, the Court hereby ALLOWS the Petition as follows. Respondents shall release Petitioner by 6 PM on April 14, 2026, unless he is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) before that time. If a bond hearing occurs, Respondents may not at the hearing argue that Petitioner is or should be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1225, nor may Petitioner be ordered detained pursuant to section 1225, and the burdens of proof at the hearing are as resolved by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara. Respondents shall not retaliate against Petitioner, at a bond hearing or otherwise, for filing this Petition. Respondents shall file a status report no later than April 16, 2026, describing their compliance with this Order. The Court renders this decision in light of the record before the Court, the prior decisions of this Court, and the government's concession that this case is similar to prior cases resolved by this Court. See Doc. No. 7 .(FGD) (Entered: 04/07/2026)
Apr 07, 2026
Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines
#9
Apr 16, 2026
Status Report
Main Document:
Status Report
#10
Apr 17, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On April 7, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to “release Petitioner by 6 PM on April 14, 2026, unless [they] provided [him] a bond hearing... before that time.” Doc. No. 8. The Assistant United States Attorney representing Respondents in this case promptly notified ICE of the Court’s Order, forwarding it to the appropriate section of ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor via email on April 7, 2026, at 10:35 AM—an hour after notice of the Order was sent to the AUSA. Doc. No. 9-1. The AUSA reiterated the deadline set by the Court, writing: “Please see the below order requiring that [Petitioner] be given a bond hearing by April 14 at 6 pm Or otherwise be released.” Id. (emphasis in original). In a status report filed yesterday afternoon, Respondents informed the court that ICE failed to comply with the Court’s order. That is, ICE neither provided Petitioner a bond hearing nor released him on April 14, 2026. Doc. No. 9. When the AUSA inquired of ICE as to the status of Petitioner on April 15, 2026, ICE disclosed that no bond hearing had occurred, citing “an administrative oversight.” Id. at 1. Only after the AUSA’s inquiry, and his explanation to ICE “that, pursuant to the Court’s Order, Petitioner must be released immediately,” did ICE release Petitioner—at 6:11 PM on April 15, 2026, more than twenty-four hours after the deadline set by the Court. Id. In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows. By April 23, 2026, Respondents shall make a supplemental filing explaining specifically, by way of affidavit(s): 1) what led to ICE’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order; and 2) what steps, if any, have been taken to improve Respondents’ procedures so ICE does not in the future detain persons in disregard of binding and unambiguous federal-court orders.(SED) (Entered: 04/17/2026)
Apr 17, 2026
Order
#11
Apr 22, 2026
Extension of Time to File Document
Main Document:
Extension of Time to File Document
#12
Apr 23, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 11 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to April 27, 2026 to File Response to Court's April 17 Order.ALLOWED. Responses due by 4/27/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 04/23/2026)
Apr 23, 2026
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
#13
Apr 27, 2026
Response to Court Order
Main Document:
Response to Court Order
#14
Apr 29, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court appreciates the candid response from Respondents, the changes in procedure to address what occurred in this case, and the scrupulous representation by the AUSA handling this case. The Court trusts Respondents will adhere to the outlined changes, as their explanation of what happened here identifies a systemic issue that does not arise from any specific circumstance unique to this case. As such, the Court reminds Respondents that the decision to take any person into custody carries with it numerous serious and binding responsibilities imposed by the law, including but not limited to compliance with court orders concerning that person. Such responsibilities obviously accumulate the more people Respondents decide to arrest and detain. If Respondents fail to meet these responsibilities, their failure cannot be justified by being overwhelmed administratively, as that is a direct and obvious consequence of Respondents’ own choices and is largely within Respondents’ control. The Clerk shall enter judgment. (SED) (Entered: 04/29/2026)
#15
Apr 29, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT (SED) (Entered: 04/29/2026)
Apr 29, 2026
Order
Parties
Party
Party
Party
Attorney
Attorney