Completed
Case Information
Filed: May 05, 2026
Assigned to:
Leo Theodore Sorokin
Referred to:
—
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause:
Petition for writ of habeas corpus
Completed: May 28, 2026
Last Activity:
July 01, 2026
Parties:
View All Parties →
Docket Entries
#1
May 05, 2026
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11722479 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by LUIS MANUEL CABA FRANCISCO. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit NTA)(Medrano Santana, Oriosto) (Entered: 05/05/2026)
Main Document:
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241
#2
May 05, 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 Donald L. Cabell. (JKK) (Entered: 05/05/2026)
#3
May 05, 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: 05/05/2026)
Main Document:
General Order 19-02
#4
May 05, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Entered: 05/05/2026)
Main Document:
Service Order-2241 Petition
#5
May 05, 2026
Copy re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 5/5/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 05/05/2026)
May 05, 2026
Copy Mailed
May 05, 2026
Notice of Case Assignment
#6
May 07, 2026
Notice of Appearance
Main Document:
Notice of Appearance
#7
May 07, 2026
Extension of Time to File Answer
Main Document:
Extension of Time to File Answer
#8
May 07, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241).ALLOWED. Field Office Director answer due 5/13/2026; Todd Lyons answer due 5/13/2026; Markwayne Mullin answer due 5/13/2026; Warden answer due 5/13/2026. (FGD) Modified on 5/8/2026: Corrected answer deadline. (FGD) (Entered: 05/07/2026)
May 07, 2026
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
#9
May 13, 2026
Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241
Main Document:
Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241
#10
May 13, 2026
Seal
Main Document:
Seal
#11
May 14, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 10 Motion to Seal Exhibits.ALLOWED. (FGD) (Entered: 05/14/2026)
#12
May 14, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 9 RESPONSE/ANSWER to Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241).By May 21, 2026, the petitioner shall file a reply limited to fifteen pages in length responding to the arguments advanced by the respondents in their opposition memorandum. (FGD) (Entered: 05/14/2026)
May 14, 2026
Order on Motion to Seal Document
May 14, 2026
Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
#13
May 28, 2026
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On May 5, 2026, the petitioner instituted this habeas action challenging his detention by immigration authorities. Doc. No. 1. The petition contained minimal factual allegations but raised statutory and constitutional challenges to the petitioner’s detention, which began in mid-April. The government’s response, with supporting exhibits, advanced serious arguments that distinguished this case from the scenarios more commonly presented by similar petitions filed over the last year or so. Doc. Nos. 9, 9-1 to -4. In short, the petitioner was a lawful permanent resident who admitted in state court to having committed acts that would violate Massachusetts criminal statutes concerning controlled substances. When he recently sought to reenter the United States after having traveled elsewhere, border officers inspected him and deemed him inadmissible based on the state-court admission. The government’s memorandum summarizes the federal statutes supporting the petitioner’s inspection and mandatory detention in these circumstances pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, argues that the petitioner’s several-week detention has not become unreasonably prolonged, and describes the petitioner’s ability to challenge the inadmissibility determination in immigration court. See Doc. No. 9 at 5-15. Because the petition had not engaged with the laws or arguments advanced by the government, the Court directed the petitioner to “file a reply... responding to the arguments advanced by the respondents in their opposition memorandum.” Doc. No. 12. That reply was due on May 21, 2026. That deadline passed a week ago, and the petitioner has made no further submission in support of his claims. In these circumstances, and on the basis of the government’s unrebutted arguments, the petition (Doc. No. 1 ) is DENIED.(FGD) (Entered: 05/28/2026)
May 28, 2026
Order
#15
Jun 08, 2026
Response to Order to Show Cause
Main Document:
Response to Order to Show Cause
Jun 12, 2026
Order To Show Cause
#17
Jun 30, 2026
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Main Document:
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Jul 01, 2026
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Parties
Party
Party
Party
Party
Attorney
Attorney
Firm