District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12234

#1

May 15, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11748539 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Edimar Junior Da Silva Campos. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Silva, Jonatas) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#2

May 15, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Myong J. Joun 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (FGD) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#3

May 15, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#4

May 15, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered. SERVICE ORDER re 2241 Petition. Order entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243 governing Section 2241 cases for service on respondents. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than May 20, 2026. (MBM) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#5

May 15, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition mailed to all respondents on 5/15/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

May 15, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

May 20, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

May 20, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#8

May 21, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 7 First Motion for Extension of Time to 5/22/2026 to File Response/Reply. Respondent must file a Response/Reply by 12PM on May 22, 2026. (SKY) (Entered: 05/21/2026)

#9

May 21, 2026

Notice - Other

May 21, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#10

May 22, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#11

May 22, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents assented-to Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. Respondents are directed to file their intended Motion for Change of Venue by 5/27/2026. Petitioner is directed to file a reply by 5/29/2026.(SP) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

May 22, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#12

May 27, 2026

Change Venue

#13

May 29, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#14

Jun 05, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered In response to Petitioners Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 1, Respondents filed a Motion to Change Venue, Doc. No. 12 . Respondents move to change the venue of this Petition to the Western District of Louisiana. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. On May 15, 2026, Petitioner departed Massachusetts, at 1:14 pm EST and landed in Louisiana, at 4:14 pm EST. Doc. No. 9 at 1 . Petitioners Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed that same day, at 3:38 PM EST, while Petitioner was in the air. Id. Respondents filed a Motion to Change Venue from the District of Massachusetts to the Western District of Louisiana because Petitioner was transferred by ICE from Plymouth County House of Corrections in Massachusetts to the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana on May 15, 2026. Doc. No. 9 at 1. As a general rule, a petitioner must file a habeas petition in the district in which they are confined and must name as a respondent the petitioners immediate custodian. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443, 447 (2004). This rule, derived from 28 U.S.C. § 2241, serves the important purposes of preventing forum shopping by habeas petitioners and avoiding the inconvenience, expense, and embarrassment of district courts with overlapping jurisdiction. Id. at 447. However, when the location of the petitioner or the identity of the custodian is not known by the petitioners counsel at the time a petition for the writ is filed, these rules must bend to preserve the petitioners right to petition for the writ. Van Tran v. Hyde, No. 25-CV-12546, 2025 WL 3171210 at *3-4 (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2025). In these circumstances, when a petitioner is held in an undisclosed location by an unknown custodian, it is impossible to apply the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules. Id. at *3 (quoting Padilla, 542 U.S. at 450 n.18). Hence, the unknown custodian exception applies to the otherwise applicable immediate custodian rule when the immediate custodian cannot be known. See id. at *4.At the moment his Petition was filed, Petitioner was physically in the air between Massachusetts and Louisiana. Because Petitioner was not physically detained in any judicial district at the time of filing, no district satisfies the district-of-confinement rule for purposes of transfer. Tacuri ex rel. Guanoluisa v. Francis, 815 F. Supp. 3d 278, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). Our tradition is that there is no gap in the fabric of habeasno place, no moment, where a person held in custody in the United States cannot call on a court to hear his case and decide it. Id. at 283 (quoting Khalil v. Joyce, 777 F. Supp. 3d 369, 410 (D.N.J. 2025)). Petitioners counsel filed the Petition in the district where he last knew Petitioner to be, which was also the district in which he was taken into custody. Indeed, at the moment Petitioners counsel filed this Petition, Petitioner was still in flight yet to enter a new district of confinement, and yet to have any other custodian than his custodian in the District of Massachusetts. Accordingly, this Court holds jurisdiction over this Petition, and the Motion to Change Venue, Doc. No. 12, is DENIED. Respondents have until June 9, 2026, to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.(SP) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

Jun 05, 2026

Order on Motion to Change Venue

#15

Jun 09, 2026

Notice of Manual Filing

#16

Jun 09, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. GRANTING 15 Respondents' Assented-To Motion for Abeyance by Timothy Baptiste, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 14 Order on Motion to Change Venue, Assented-To Motion for Abeyance. The parties shall file a status report within 48 hours of the outcome of the motion to reopen before EOIR.(SP) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

Jun 09, 2026

Order on Motion to Stay

#17

Jun 12, 2026

Status Report

#18

Jun 15, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court acknowledges Respondents 6/12/26 status report. Respondents shall file a response to the petition by 6/19/26. Petitioner may file a reply by 6/24/26.(SP) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

Jun 15, 2026

Order

#19

Jun 19, 2026

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

#20

Jul 06, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On 5/15/26, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See Doc. No. 1 . The Petition was held in abeyance until the Motion to Reopen before the Executive Office for Immigration Review was decided. See Doc. No. 16 . On 6/10/26, an Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen, and likewise denied any request for a stay of removal. Doc. No. 17-1. Respondents filed their opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 6/19/26, arguing that Petitioner is lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), and provided their notice of intent to remove Petitioner as soon as this Court lifts the stay of transfer or removal. Doc. No. 19 .Once a noncitizen has received a final order of removal, the Government is statutorily required to detain that noncitizen for 90 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). However, if the noncitizen has not been removed within 90 days, further detention may be necessary if it is deemed reasonable. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). The Court in Zadvydas held that the presumptive limit of reasonable detention of a noncitizen is six months, after which, once a noncitizen “provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” 533 U.S. at 701.Here, Petitioner received a final order of removal on 2/24/26, placing Petitioner outside of the mandatory 90-day detention window. Doc. No. 19 at 3; Doc. No. 19-3 at 3. Petitioner’s detention is still within the six-month period of presumptively reasonable detention, however, and Respondents contend that removal is highly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Doc. No. 19 at 1. Because Petitioner’s current detention falls within the § 1231(a) and Zadvydas framework, and the writ of habeas corpus can only provide relief from illegal custody, this Court cannot grant Petitioner the relief he seeks. The Petition, Doc. No. 1, is therefore DENIED at this time.(SP) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#21

Jul 06, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT. (SP) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

Jul 06, 2026

Order