Southern District of Florida • 0:26-cv-61386

#1

May 07, 2026

APPLICATION/PETITION (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Filing fee $ 5.00, filed by Fabian Andres Fernandez Salcedo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)Case restricted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. (kma) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#2

May 07, 2026

Judge Assignment to Judge Roy K. Altman (kma) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#3

May 07, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Fabian Andres Fernandez Salcedo. Responses due by 5/21/2026. (kma) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#4

May 07, 2026

MOTION to Appoint Counsel and for Expedite Consideration by Fabian Andres Fernandez Salcedo. Responses due by 5/21/2026. (kma) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#5

May 08, 2026

Clerks Notice of Receipt of Filing Fee received on 5/7/2026 in the amount of $ 5.00, receipt number FLS317366. (vt) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

May 08, 2026

Judge Assignment

#7

May 11, 2026

NOTICE of Compliance per Order at DE 6, the Clerk has mailed a copy of the Order, as well as a copy of this Court's approved form for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions the to the Petitioner. (wce) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#6

May 12, 2026

Order Dismissing/Closing Case or Party AND ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines

May 12, 2026

Notice of Compliance

#8

May 27, 2026

Application/Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#9

May 27, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#10

May 27, 2026

Expedite AND Miscellaneous Relief

#11

May 29, 2026

- Order (PAPERLESS or pdf attached) AND ~Util - Set Response/Answer Due Deadline

#12

May 29, 2026

PAPERLESS OMNIBUS ORDER. On May 27, 2026, the Petitioner filed two motions--an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO Motion") [ECF No. 9] and an Emergency Motion for Expedited Consideration [ECF No. 10]. After careful review, we'll DENY both motions. First, both motions are procedurally defective. Our Local Rules require a party filing an emergency motion to certify that the motion "in fact presents a true emergency" and "requires an immediate ruling because the Court would not be able to provide meaningful relief... after the expiration of seven days." S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). But Salcedo didn't certify that either motion was a true emergency and has therefore violated Local Rule 7.1(d). Second, Salcedo hasn't demonstrated that he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his habeas claim, such that we could grant his TRO Motion. Salcedo tells us that he received an individualized bond hearing but claims that the immigration judge inappropriately relied on "traffic-related history, driving-related allegations, trespass allegations, and concerns regarding financial resources when denying bond." TRO Motion at 3. "The Immigration Judge," he continues "failed to adequately consider favorable factors supporting release. Ibid. But our jurisdiction to review a bond determination made under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is expressly limited as follows: "The Attorney General's discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention of any alien or the revocation or denial of bond or parole." 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). If Salcedo disagrees with his bond denial, he must appeal it to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(f) ("The determination of an Immigration Judge with respect to custody status or bond redetermination shall be entered on the appropriate form at the time such decision is made and the parties shall be informed orally or in writing of the reasons for the decision. An appeal from the determination by an Immigration Judge may be taken to the Board of Immigration Appeals pursuant to § 1003.38."); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(a) ("Decisions of Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals[.]"). Under this regulatory framework, Salcedo's habeas request is very likely inappropriate and is thus unlikely to succeed. See Stephens v. Ripa, 2022 WL 18108494, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2022) (Becerra, Mag. J.), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 34689 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2023) (Martinez, J.) ("While Petitioner may disagree with the IJ's conclusion, it is beyond this Court's authority to reweigh the evidence presented to the IJ and reach a conclusion of its own."). Third, Salcedo's Motion for Expedited Consideration is premature. We're required by statute to order the Respondent to show cause "within three days" or, for good cause shown, no more than "twenty days[,]" 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which we have done by separate order. And since we've only just ordered the government to respond, there's nothing to expedite. Accordingly, Salcedo's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 9] and Emergency Motion for Expedited Consideration [ECF No. 10] are DENIED. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 5/29/2026. (mro) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order AND Order on Motion to Expedite

#13

Jun 01, 2026

FIRST Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 6 Order Dismissing Case. US Mail returned for: Fabian Andres Fernandez Salcedo. The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two undeliverable notices from the Court, notices will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (scn) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#14

Jun 01, 2026

Notice of Attorney Appearance

Jun 01, 2026

Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail

#15

Jun 15, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#16

Jun 23, 2026

Reply to Response to Order to Show Cause