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

Jun 11, 2025

Incorrect Document Entry Information. Wrong initiating event (Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum Returned Unexecuted) was used when docketing Petition for Habeas Corpus. Docket Entry 2 was deleted and re-entered using correct event: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Notice regarding $5.00 Filing Fee to follow. (LJ)

Jun 11, 2025

The case of Lopez Galvez v. Noem et al, has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. The case number is 2:25-cv-03229. PLEASE NOTE: You must pay the $5.00 habeas case filing fee within seven (7) days. Please mail (or drop off) a check or money order made out to Clerk of Court, EDNY to 100 Federal Plaza Central Islip, NY 11722. Your case cannot be assigned until payment is made. (LJ)

#3

Jun 16, 2025

Filing Fee Received

#4

Jun 16, 2025

Quality Control Check - Attorney Case Opening

Jun 16, 2025

Case Assigned to Judge Joanna Seybert. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (LJ)

Jun 16, 2025

Quality Control Check - Summons

Jun 16, 2025

A summons was not issued for the following reason: No summons provided, please submit summons. The event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (LJ)

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

Proposed Summonses 5 6 were not issued for one of 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 name and addresses of ALL defendants included. (4) The judges are incorrect/not listed. Please correct and resubmit using Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (CV)

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

Civil Case Terminated pursuant to 7/1/2025 Order. (GO)

Jul 01, 2025

Order Dismissing Case

Jul 01, 2025

ORDER DISMISSING CASE re 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Order to Show Cause:By a June 26, 2025 Electronic Order, Petitioner was "to SHOW CAUSE, by affidavit, why her Petition should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction" and "if Petitioner asserts the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, she is to SHOW CAUSE why she is entitled to habeas relief pursuant to § 2241" (hereafter, the "OSC"). On June 30, Counsel for Petitioner filed a letter responding to the OSC. (See OSC Response, ECF No. 9 .) Counsel argues:Petitioner is within the constructive custody of [Enforcement and Removal Operations] the other Respondents because she has been required to appear before ICE or ISAP officers and has been told to depart the United States within 30 days from June 3, 2025. These required appearances and her instruction to leave the United States, as well as the fact that [Petitioner] has a prior order of removal, establish that she is in the constructive custody of the Respondents.(Id.) While Counsel addressed the § 2241 issue (although, not in the required affidavit form), he failed to address those portions the OSC regarding: (1) Petitioner's apparent misplaced reliance upon the Alfao Garcia Settlement; and (2) the appearance that "Petitioner is indirectly challenging her reinstated order of removal" which, the Second Circuit has made clear, a district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain. (OSC (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) and Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2011)).)Thus, even assuming Petitioner has established she is in the constructive custody of Respondent pursuant to § 2241, she has failed to show this Court has jurisdiction to consider her indirect challenge to her reinstated order of removal. Rather, upon the record presented, the Court finds Petitioner is indirectly challenging her reinstated order of removal and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) is a jurisdictional bar to its consideration of Petitioner's indirect challenge, see Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2011). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Petitioner's Petitioner is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 7/1/2025 c/ECF (PAK)