Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01008

#1

May 15, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5830357.), filed by Pedro Jesus Rodriguez Camargo. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hartman, Theodore) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#2

May 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Pedro Jesus Rodriguez Camargo So that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel, the respondents are enjoined from transferring the petitioner to any district outside the Western District of New York. See Perez y Perez v. Noem, 2025 WL 1908284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (collecting cases). In da Cunha v. Freden, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026), the Second Circuit held that noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are subject to detention under section 1226. And in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, 816 F. Supp. 3d 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court held that detention of noncitizens who have remained in the country following expiration of parole is under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not section 1225. Additionally, this Court held in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), "that constitutional due process requires the government to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is either a danger to the community or a flight risk even at an initial bond hearing under section 1226(a)." Id. at 598. It appears that the holdings of da Cunha v. Freden, Alvarez Ortiz and/or Cabrera Martinez may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 5/22/2026, why, in light of those decisions, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/15/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. (ARS)

May 15, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (ARS)

#3

May 18, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Adam A. Khalil, appearing on behalf of James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

#4

May 18, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,, filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

#5

May 18, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Pedro Jesus Rodriguez Camargo On 5/15/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of the Second Circuit's decision in da Cunha v. Freden, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026)), and this Court's decision in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2025 WL 3085032 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2025), "(1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay." Docket Item 2 . In response, the "[r]espondents acknowledge[d] that this Court's prior rulings," including Alvarez Ortiz, "concern[ed] similar challenges to the government policy or practice at issue in this case, and the common question of law between this case and those rulings, would control the result in this case should the Court adhere to its legal reasoning in those prior decisions." Docket Item 4 at 2. The respondents have reserved all rights, and this Court appreciates their efforts "to conserve judicial and party resources" by not rehashing issues that this Court and the Second Circuit already have decided. See id. at 1-2.Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz and da Cunha, this Court GRANTS the petition and ORDERS the respondents to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this order. At that hearing, the government shall bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. At that bond hearing, the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. If the respondents fail to provide such a hearing within seven calendar days, they shall immediately release the petitioner. On or before 5/26/2026, the respondents shall file a status report confirming that the petitioner has either been granted a bond hearing in compliance with this order or released from custody. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/18/2026.(ZHM) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

#6

May 22, 2026

MOTION to Enforce Judgment by Pedro Jesus Rodriguez Camargo.(Hartman, Theodore) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#7

May 26, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#8

May 26, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 6 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Pedro Jesus Rodriguez Camargo. Response due by 6/2/2026. Reply due by 6/9/2026. If necessary, the Court will schedule oral argument at a later date. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/26/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#9

Jun 02, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney in opposition to the Motion to Enforce. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#10

Jun 10, 2026

MOTION to Dismiss by Pedro Jesus Rodriguez Camargo.(Hartman, Theodore) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

#11

Jun 11, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney consenting to dismissal/discontinuance. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/11/2026)

#12

Jun 12, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The petitioner, Pedro Jesus Rodriguez Camargo, has indicated to the Court that he is now seeking voluntary departure from the United States. See Docket Item 10 . For that reason, he "wishes to discontinue" this action and has filed a "motion to discontinue [the] habeas petition." Id. (bolding and capitalizations omitted). The respondents have consented to the discontinuance of this action and say that the Court "may order dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) accordingly." Docket Item 11 . In light of that consent and the circumstances noted by the petitioner, the Court GRANTS his motion to discontinue and dismisses this action without prejudice. See United States v. Acquest Wehrle, LLC, 2017 WL 6387801, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2017) ("Rule 41(a)(2) allows a district court to accept a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal upon terms and conditions that the court deems proper."); see also Pouliot v. Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 537, 540 (D. Conn. 2006) ("[I]n light of Rule 41(a)(2)s statement that voluntary dismissal by order of the court is without prejudice unless the court orders otherwise, the Court assumes that [plaintiff] has agreed only to voluntary dismissal without prejudice."). In light of that motion, the petitioner's pending motion to enforce, Docket Item 6, is DENIED without prejudice as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 6/12/2026. (ZHM)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 06/12/2026)