District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12372

#1

May 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Kelson Orelus. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit 2241 Petition (26cv11397-MJJ))(MAP) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#2

May 26, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge William G. Young 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (CAM) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#3

May 26, 2026

Judge William G. Young: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVALRespondents shall answer or otherwise respond to the petition no later than Tuesday June 2, 2026(MAP) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#4

May 26, 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). (MAP) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

May 27, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $ 5.00, receipt number 100015552 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (NVB) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

May 27, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#6

Jun 02, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Jun 02, 2026

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

#8

Jun 03, 2026

Judge William G. Young: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER REASSIGNING CASE Pursuant to Local Rule 40.1. Case is reassigned for all further proceedings to Judge Myong J. Joun as related to 26cv11397-MJJ. (MAP) (Entered: 06/03/2026)

#9

Jun 03, 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. (EZG) (Entered: 06/03/2026)

#10

Jun 03, 2026

General Order 19-02

#11

Jun 03, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

Jun 03, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jun 03, 2026

Order Reassigning Case

#12

Jun 12, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on May 26, 2026, in which Petitioner states three grounds for relief: (1) violation of constitutional due process rights, (2) failure to present Petitioner for his criminal proceedings, and (3) failure to provide Petitioner with necessary medical attention. [Doc. No. 1 at 6]. For the reasons explained below, these arguments are unavailing, and the Petition, Doc. No. 1, is DENIED. On March 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. See Orelus v. Moniz et al., 26-cv-12372, Doc. No. 1 . I granted this Petition on March 25, 2026, and ordered the Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by April 1, 2026. 26-cv-12372 at Doc. No. 8 . At his bond hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined the Petitioner was a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. [Doc. No. 7-1 at 1]. Because Petitioner received a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on April 1, 2026, and it appears the IJ considered the evidence to support the decision to deny bond, see [Doc. No. 7-1 at 4], Petitioner’s claim of a constitutional due process violation must fail.Second, Petitioner argues for habeas relief because he alleges that ICE is failing to present him for his criminal proceedings. [Doc. No. 1 at 6]. Respondents oppose, noting that Rule 2(c) of the Habeas Rules require a Petitioner to plead specific facts, which Petitioner failed to do. [Doc. No. 7 at 7]. Petitioner argues that ICE “has continuously denied” the requests to present Petitioner for his criminal hearings, but offers no specific examples. [Doc. No. 1 at 6]. However, Respondents note that the state district court issued a state habe for Petitioner to appear on April 23, 2026, to remove his default warrant, and Petitioner appeared. [Id. at 13]. Based on this record, Petitioner’s habeas claim on this point fails to persuade.Finally, Petitioner argues that ICE has failed to provide adequate medical treatment. [Doc. No. 1 at 6]. Like the second point, supra, Petitioner fails to allege specific facts in line with Rule 2(c) of the Habeas Rules, and Respondents allege examples to the contrary. Specifically, Respondents offer a declaration from the Health Services Administrator at Petitioner’s place of detention, which details the sick slips submitted by Petitioner and the treatment Petitioner received in response to those slips. [Doc. No. 7-7]. Further, a habeas petition is generally not the proper avenue to challenge conditions of confinement. See, e.g., Kamara v. Farquharson, 2 F. Supp. 2d 81, 88–89 (D. Mass. 1998) (holding that challenge to conditions of confinement on grounds of inadequate medical treatment should have been brought as civil rights, rather than habeas, action). For all of these reasons, the Petition, Doc. No. 1, is DENIED. (SP) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

#13

Jun 12, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

#14

Jun 12, 2026

Copy re 13 Order Dismissing Case, 12 Order, mailed to Kelson Orelus A#246413517 Plymouth County Correctional Facility 26 Long Pond Road Plymouth, MA 02360 on 6/12/2026. (SP) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jun 12, 2026

Order