Eastern District of New York • 2:25-cv-03229

#1

Jun 10, 2025

Civil Cover Sheet.. by Maryury Adela Lopez Galvez (Bembi, Bruno) (Entered: 06/10/2025)

Jun 10, 2025

Notice(Other)

Jun 10, 2025

NOTICE: Missing initiating documents. Your initiating documents (Complaint/Petition, Proposed Summons, etc.) and payment must be made when a case number is generated. Please file your documents as soon as possible so the clerk's office can process your case. (LJ)

#2

Jun 11, 2025

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Jun 11, 2025

Notice to Pay Civil Filing Fee

Jun 11, 2025

Incorrect Case-Document Information

#3

Jun 16, 2025

Filing Fee Received

#4

Jun 16, 2025

Quality Control Check - Attorney Case Opening

Jun 16, 2025

Quality Control Check - Summons

Jun 16, 2025

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#5

Jun 18, 2025

Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet

#6

Jun 18, 2025

Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet

Jun 20, 2025

Quality Control Check - Summons

#7

Jun 24, 2025

Stay

#8

Jun 24, 2025

Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet

Jun 25, 2025

Quality Control Check - Summons

Jun 25, 2025

Proposed Summonses Re: 8 were not issued for the following reasons: (1) Did not use the correct Summons form AO 440 Rev 6/12, SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION, the PDF FILLABLE format form that is on the Court's website is to be utilized. (2) The full case caption must appear on the summons. (3) If multiple defendants, there must be a rider attached to the summons with the full case caption and name and addresses of ALL defendants included. Please correct and resubmit using Proposed Summons. (CV)

Jun 26, 2025

Order to Show Cause (Federal)

Jun 26, 2025

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE:Presently before the Court is: (1) the Verified Petition of Petitioner Maryury Adela Lopez Galvez ("Petitioner"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Pet., ECF No. 1 ); and (2) Motion for Stay of Removal Pendente Lite (ECF No. 7 ). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or because Petitioner is not entitled to the requested habeas relief. As an initial matter, Petitioner seeks habeas relief pursuant to § 2241, which statute applies to those who are in custody of another. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1)-(5). Yet, according to her Verified Petition, Petitioner is not in custody or otherwise detained. (See Pet. at para 3; see also Pet., in toto.) Hence, the avenue by which Petitioner seeks to pursue relief does not appear to be available to her. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." (emphases added)).Further, Petitioner contends her removal from the United States before being afforded a "reasonable fear" hearing would violate the terms of the Settlement Agreement in the class action Alfao Garcia v. Johnson, No. 14-CV-1775 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (hereafter, the "Alfao Garcia Case"), which applies to class members who, among other things, "will be subject to a reinstated order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)" and are "detained in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security". See Alfao Garcia Case, Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 133-1; see also id., Final Order Approving Settlement, ECF No. 133. It appears Petitioner's reliance upon the Alfao Garcia Settlement Order is misplaced, as by her own allegations, she is not a member of the Class. Moreover, such a position does not raise a challenge to the constitutionality of a detention, which is the type of challenge over which this Court would have jurisdiction. Finally, it appears that, by her Petition, Petitioner is indirectly challenging her reinstated order of removal. (See generally Pet.) However, the Second Circuit has made clear that, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)'s jurisdictional bar, district courts are precluded from reviewing indirect challenges to removal orders. See Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2011).Thus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by June 30, 2025, Petitioner is to SHOW CAUSE, by affidavit, why her Petitioner should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; if Petitioner asserts the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, she is to SHOW CAUSE why she is entitled to habeas relief pursuant to § 2241. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 6/26/2025. c/ECF (PAK)

#9

Jun 30, 2025

Letter

Jul 01, 2025

~Util - Terminate Civil Case

Jul 01, 2025

Order Dismissing Case