Middle District of Florida • 6:26-cv-00925

#1

Apr 27, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Federal (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number AFLMDC-24855099) filed by Jefferson David Fuentes Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ravinet, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#2

Apr 27, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction by Jefferson David Fuentes Martinez. (Ravinet, Nicholas) Added MOTION for Preliminary Injunction on 4/28/2026. (AA) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#3

Apr 27, 2026

NOTICE of Lead Counsel Designation by Nicholas Ravinet on behalf of Jefferson David Fuentes Martinez. Lead Counsel: Nicholas Ravinet. (Ravinet, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#4

Apr 27, 2026

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 by Jefferson David Fuentes Martinez. (Ravinet, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#5

Apr 28, 2026

NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Julie S. Sneed and Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price. New case number: 6:26-cv-925-JSS-LHP. (AA) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

Apr 28, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#6

Apr 30, 2026

Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

#7

Apr 30, 2026

Order

#8

May 01, 2026

Response to habeas petition

#9

May 04, 2026

Amend / Correct / Modify / Supplement

#10

May 04, 2026

Notice of appearance

#11

May 05, 2026

Order

#12

May 06, 2026

TRANSFER to Jacksonville Division and assigned case number 3:26-cv-1162-MMH-SJH (RPB) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#13

May 06, 2026

Reconsideration / Clarification

#14

May 06, 2026

ENDORSED ORDER denying Petitioner's emergency motion requesting reconsideration of the order transferring this case to the Jacksonville division (Dkt. 13). The court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion, as this case is now before another judge within this district. (See Dkt. 12.) See Daker v. Bryson, 841 F. App'x 115, 124 (11th Cir. 2020) ("When a case is transferred, the transferor court loses jurisdiction of the case."). Even so, reconsideration is not warranted, as Petitioner has not shown that (1) "an intervening change in controlling law," (2) "the availability of new evidence," or (3) "the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice" justifies such relief. Fla. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998); see Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (explaining that reconsideration is "an extraordinary remedy" that "must of necessity be used sparingly"). Although Petitioner suggests that transferring this case may delay resolution of his petition, he has not demonstrated that it will adversely affect a substantial right, undermine the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or that a resolution of this matter will in fact be delayed by the transfer. See United States v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 257 F. App'x 222, 223 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a decision is not manifestly unjust unless it affects the outcome of the proceedings). Indeed, Petitioner's concerns are undermined by Respondents' subsequent response to the petition. See Fuentes Martinez v. Lyons, No. 3:26-cv-1162-MMH-SJH, Dkt. No. 13 (M.D. Fla.). At bottom, the court transferred this case to the Jacksonville division because Petitioner is detained at the Baker County Detention Center, in MacClenny, Florida. (See Dkt. 11.) Because Petitioner is detained at a facility within the Jacksonville division and prefers to remain there during these proceedings, (see Dkt 9 at 1), the court concluded that transferring this case to that division would further the expeditious administration of justice. (See Dkt. 11.) See Hooker v. United States, No. 22-12820, 2023 WL 3317413, at *2 (11th Cir. May 9, 2023) ("District Judges have the inherent power to transfer cases from one to another for the expeditious administration of justice." (quoting United States v. Stone, 411 F.2d 597, 599 (5th Cir. 1969)); accord United States v. Gordon, 780 F. App'x 754, 758 (11th Cir. 2019) (same). For these reasons, reconsideration is inappropriate, and the motion is denied. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 5/6/2026. (DM) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

May 06, 2026

Division transfer out

May 06, 2026

Order on Motion for Reconsideration / Clarification

#15

May 08, 2026

Proof of Service

#16

May 08, 2026

Proof of Service

#17

May 11, 2026

Proof of Service

#18

May 22, 2026

Proof of Service