District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11660

#1

Apr 09, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) AND MOTION For Temporary Restraining Order Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11666523 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Lucas Feliciano Juarez Niz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(MacMurray, Kevin) Modified on 4/9/2026: docket to match filing (EZG). (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#2

Apr 09, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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. (SP) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#3

Apr 09, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#4

Apr 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL.Respondents shall determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and notify the Court no later than 1:00 p.m. on Friday, April 10, 2026. Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 14, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#5

Apr 09, 2026

Copy re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition,, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) mailed to all respondents on 4/9/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

Apr 09, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Apr 09, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Apr 10, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#7

Apr 10, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin. (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#8

Apr 10, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. “Habeas petitions are not the appropriate means to challenge a prisoner’s circumstances of confinement, including a prisoner's location of custody.” Brouillard v. Lyons, 2026 WL 497009, at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 23, 2026). “A request to prevent transfer is outside the scope of this Court's habeas jurisdiction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, and in light of Respondents’ response, Dkt. 7, Petitioner is ordered to show cause for why this petition should not be dismissed on or before Friday, April 17, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. (MBM) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

Apr 10, 2026

Order

#9

Apr 16, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#10

Apr 22, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents correctly argue that Petitioner’s requested relief—a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting Petitioner’s transfer out of Plymouth Country Correctional Facility, Dkt. 1 at 6—may not be brought as a habeas claim, see Dkt. 7 . Petitioner argues that “[w]hile the petition includes a request to prevent transfer, that request is not an independent claim” and that “[i]t is ancillary relief necessary to preserve this Court’s ability to adjudicate the core habeas challenge.” Dkt. 1 at 3. Petitioner claims, further, that the Petition challenges: “[t]he statutory basis for detention, specifically Respondents’ improper classification of Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. [s.] 1225(b)”; “[t]he resulting denial of a bond hearing to which Petitioner is entitled under 8 U.S.C. [s.] 1226(a)”; and “[t]he constitutional violation arising from prolonged detention without an individualized custody determination.” Dkt. 1 at 2. However, this is belied by the Petition itself, which requests only that the Court (1) grant a TRO prohibiting transfer, (2) order that Petitioners remains detained in this District pending resolution of the proceedings, and (3) preserve the Court’s jurisdiction over any related habeas or custody-related claims, of which there are none. Id. at 6. Petitioner does not request that this Court grant him a bond hearing or release him. The only implicit reference to sections 1225 or 1226 is Petitioner’s statement that “[a]s a member of the [Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 185 (D. Mass. 2025)] class, Petitioner is entitled to protections against detention practices that obstruct access to custody review. ICE’s threatened transfer would directly contravene those protections.” Dkt. 1 at 5. But Petitioner has sought no relief related to the legality of his detention itself and challenges to the location and conditions of confinement are not grounds for habeas relief. See Brouillard v. Lyons, 2026 WL 497009, at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 23, 2026) (denying the petition “because the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a no-transfer order and, even if it did, Petitioner’s claim of a due process violation is not yet ripe”); id. (“As stated, Petitioner does not challenge the lawfulness of her custody. She is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent her transfer outside of New England.”); Benito Vasquez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp. 3d 177, 182 (D. Mass. 2025) (“[T]o the extent petitioner seeks to enjoin ICE from removing him from Massachusetts indefinitely,.. . such [a] request[] [is] beyond the extent of habeas relief. Writs of habeas corpus can be used only to request release from custody.”). Further, notwithstanding Petitioner’s assertion that “[c]ourts have long recognized that they may issue orders under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve jurisdiction and prevent actions that would moot or frustrate habeas Review,” Dkt. 9 at 3, the All Writs Act cannot grant this Court jurisdiction over a case that has not yet been brought. See Quichimbo Sumba v. Edlow, 2026 WL 395033, at *4 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2026) (“When a district court invokes the All Writs Act, it must do so in aid of jurisdiction that it already has.”); see also United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172 (1977) (“This Court has repeatedly recognized the power of a federal court to issue such commands under the All Writs Act as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained.” (emphasis added)).Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED.(MBM) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#11

Apr 22, 2026

Judgment

Apr 22, 2026

Order