District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-04094

#1

Apr 16, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number NEW53888.), filed by LUIS JOSE PINTO PORTILLO. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope)(pm, ) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#2

Apr 16, 2026

Exhibit to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by LUIS JOSE PINTO PORTILLO. (pm, )NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel is advised that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2), a single, consolidated motion to seal shall be filed within 14 days following the completed briefing of the materials sought to be sealed, or within 14 days following the date on which the last of such materials was filed under temporary seal if the motion is resolved, unless otherwise directed by the Court. Counsel are further advised that service of sealed documents must be accomplished outside of ECF as provided by Federal R. Civ. Pro. 5(b)(2) only. (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#3

Apr 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER. Respondents are hereby enjoined from transferring Petitioner from New Jersey pending further Order of the Court.. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/17/2026. (pm, ) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#4

Apr 19, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Luis Jose Pinto Portillo's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, D.E. 1 ("Petition"). Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention by immigration authorities as unlawful, after he received an allegedly inadequate bond hearing that violated his right to due process, and he seeks immediate release. In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases ("Habeas Rule 4"), applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b), scope of the Rules, this Court has screened the Petition for dismissal and determined dismissal without a full answer is not warranted. Respondents shall file an expedited answer to the Petition, including a copy of Petitioner's bond hearing transcript, within 7 days of this Order. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 4/19/2026. (bt) (Entered: 04/19/2026)

Apr 19, 2026

Text Order

#5

Apr 20, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Apr 27, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#7

Apr 28, 2026

Exhibit (to Document)

#8

Apr 28, 2026

Exhibit (to Document)

#9

Apr 30, 2026

Exhibit (to Document)

#10

May 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon pro se Petitioner Luis Jose Pinto Portillo's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D.E. 1 ("Petition"), and Respondent's answer in opposition to the Petition, D.E. 6 ("Answer") with supporting exhibits, D.Es. 7-9. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and the record, the Court holds that Petitioner's bond hearing challenge is MOOT and that Petitioner is lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) for removal, and therefore, will DENY the Petition.Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras and father of a two-year-old United States citizen son, has lived in the United States since February 2021. He was arrested and detained at Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey by immigration authorities on December 31, 2025. Petition at 5-6, Declaration of Luis Jose Pinto Portillo ("Portillo Decl."); D.E. 2. Since his detention, Petitioner has suffered from colds, fevers, and increased pain from a previous leg injury. See Portillo Decl. Petitioner claims his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because: (1) an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied his bond request without requiring the Government to show by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a flight risk or danger and without making an individualized determination of his liberty interest; and (2) his continued detention has become prolonged and serves no legitimate governmental purpose. Petition at 4-5. Thus, Petitioner seeks release or a new bond hearing. Id.Respondents oppose habeas relief on the grounds that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, see D.E. 7-3, Ex. C ("Order on Motion to Pretermit") & D.E. 7-4, Ex. D ("Decision and Order Pretermitting Applications"), and that his final-removal order detention is lawful. Answer at 2-3. On February 26, 2026, IJ Chen pretermitted Petitioner's asylum application, application for withholding of removal, and application for protection under the Convention Against Torture, and entered an order for Petitioner's removal. See Answer at 2. Respondents submit that IJ Chen's decision became administratively final on March 26, 2026, when Petitioner failed to appeal it within the 30 days statutory time limit. Id.The Court agrees with Respondents. Petitioner's due process challenge to his pre-final removal order detention, based on the February 26, 2026, bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), is now moot because a finding in Petitioner's favor would not provide relief from his current post-final removal order detention. See, e.g., Quan Guan Zheng v. Sessions, No. 18-1301, 2018 WL 6928912, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-1301, 2019 WL 93496 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2019) (dismissing habeas petition challenging pre-final removal order mandatory detention as moot when order of removal became final). Moreover, Petitioner's final removal order detention is presumptively reasonable for six-months, at which time he must show good reason to believe that "there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (determining presumptively reasonable period for removal). At this juncture, Petitioner's challenge on those grounds is premature.Finally, to the extent Petitioner seeks release because he suffers medical conditions that have worsened with his detention, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's conditions of confinement claim under § 2241 because he has not presented extraordinary circumstances where release is the only appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Ramos v. Thompson, No. 24-6645, 2024 WL 3518125, at *2 (D.N.J. July 24, 2024) (dismissing § 2241 petition based on prisoner's inadequate medical care claims for lack of jurisdiction).For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED as MOOT and DENIED in part without prejudice because Petitioner's final removal order detention is not unlawful at this time. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this matter, subject to reopening if Petitioner's detention becomes unreasonably prolonged. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 5/11/2026. (bt) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

May 11, 2026

***Civil Case Terminated. (wh)

May 11, 2026

Text Order

May 12, 2026

Terminate Civil Case

#11

Jun 10, 2026

Mail Returned