District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13321

#1

Nov 07, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11347136 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Carlos Arevalo Nieto, Christian Coreas Martinez, Rudy Domingo Jacobo, Levin Gomez Gomez, Carlos Gomez Mijangos, Luciano Lopez Chavez, Benito Novoa Martinez, Manuel Sumba Tama, Davi Verciano. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ciachurski, Julia) Modified on 11/7/2025 to delete duplicate docket text (SP). (Entered: 11/07/2025)

#2

Nov 07, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (SEC) (Entered: 11/07/2025)

Nov 07, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#3

Nov 11, 2025

Service Order-2241 Petition

#4

Nov 18, 2025

General Order 19-02

#5

Nov 19, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#6

Nov 20, 2025

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

#7

Nov 21, 2025

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

#8

Dec 02, 2025

Notice - Other

#9

Dec 04, 2025

Expedite

#10

Dec 05, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having considered the Petition of Levin Gomez Gomez, Davi Verciano, Rudy Domingo Jacobo, Carlos Arevalo Nieto, Benito Novoa Martinez, Manuel Sumba Tama, Carlos Gomez Mijangos, Christian Coreas Martinez and Luciano Lopez Chavez (collectively, "Petitioners"), D. 1, and the government's response, D. 7, the Court ALLOWS the Petition to the following extent. As to Petitioners Christian Coreas Martinez and Luciano Lopez Chavez, in accordance with their voluntary dismissal, D. 6, their claims brought before this session of the Court are dismissed. As to the remaining Petitioners, consistent with this Court's rulings in Dias De Carvalho, Da Silva and Carranza, the Court concludes that Petitioners' custody is covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determination of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), as Respondents contend (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"). Order, Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde et al., No. 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14 and cases cited; Da Silva v. Bondi et al., No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025) and cases cited; Order, Carranza v. Hyde et al., No. 25-cv-12929-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 6, 2025), D. 7 and cases cited. Thus, Petitioners are entitled to a bond hearing. Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within ten (10) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioners bond on the basis that they are detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within fourteen days (14) days of this Order stating whether Petitioners have been granted bond and, if their request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.In their response to Petitioners' Petition, "Respondents also move for all Respondents other than Respondent Moniz to be dismissed from this action." D. 7 at 1 n.2. Although generally, "the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official," Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004), given that part of the relief sought by Petitioners is a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), D. 1 at 13, and the Court only grants relief as to the bond hearing sought by Petitioners, the Court declines to dismiss the additional Respondents as they can effectuate the bond hearing relief granted. See Garcia Guaman v. Hyde et al., No. 25-cv-12879-ADB, 2025 WL 3194741, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 17, 2025) (noting that "it may be necessary to name additional respondents when the remedy sought through a habeas petition involves procedural rights that cannot be effectuated by the immediate custodian") (citing Bourguignon v. MacDonald, 667 F. Supp. 2d 175, 180 (D. Mass. 2009)). Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss any Respondent.(LMH) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

#11

Dec 05, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 9 Motion to Expedite. In light of the Court's ruling today on D. 1, the motion to expedite is DENIED as moot. (LMH) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

Dec 05, 2025

Order

Dec 05, 2025

Order on Motion to Expedite

#12

Dec 15, 2025

Status Report

#13

Dec 15, 2025

Response - not related to a motion

#14

Dec 18, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court is in receipt of the government's status report regarding the bond hearing previously ordered, D. 12, and Petitioner's response to same (which also seeks immediate release). Having considered both filing (including the scheduling of the bond hearing for 12/15/25 in accordance with the Court's prior order, D. 10), the Court amends its prior Order, D. 10, to order a rescheduled bond hearing within seven (7) days of this Order and that a status report regarding same shall be filed within ten days of this Order. (LMH) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

Dec 19, 2025

Order

#15

Dec 23, 2025

Status Report

#16

Dec 23, 2025

Amended Document - NOT Motion