District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12387

#1

May 27, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11769933 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Marcela Ferreira Fonseca De Souza, Pedro Henrique Matildes De Souza. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Souza Pereira, Karoline) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#2

May 27, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Marcelo Gondim Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-11769986 by Marcela Ferreira Fonseca De Souza, Pedro Henrique Matildes De Souza.(Souza Pereira, Karoline) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#3

May 27, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel shall complete and file in PDF format a Local Category Form. The form can be found on the court's website under Resources/Forms. Counsel will use the event under Other Documents- Civil Cover Sheet & Category Sheet. (EZG) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#4

May 27, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Indira Talwani 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 Paul G. Levenson. (JKK) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#5

May 27, 2026

Civil Cover Sheet & Category Sheet by Marcela Ferreira Fonseca De Souza, Pedro Henrique Matildes De Souza. (Souza Pereira, Karoline) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#6

May 27, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL (MAP) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#7

May 27, 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: 05/27/2026)

May 27, 2026

Notice - Other

May 27, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#8

Jun 01, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#9

Jun 01, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing 2 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Marcelo Gondim. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (MAP) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#10

Jun 01, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: granting Respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time [ 8 ]. The court notes Petitioners’ opposition as reported in the Local Rule 7.1 Certificate, but where Petitioners are not currently being detained, the court finds Respondents’ request for additional time to address Petitioners’ challenge to GPS ankle monitoring reasonable and with good cause. Respondents shall file their response by June 5, 2026. (MAP) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

Jun 01, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

Jun 01, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

#11

Jun 05, 2026

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

#12

Jun 08, 2026

Brief - not related to a motion

#13

Jul 02, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Petitioners Marcela Ferreira Fonseca De Souza and Pedro Henrique Matildes De Souza seek habeas relief from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “unilateral imposition of GPS ankle monitoring after [Petitioners’] release on recognizance and full compliance with all supervision requirements.” Pet. ¶ 1 [ 1 ]. Petitioners allege that ICE imposed GPS ankle monitoring and cell phone “SmartLINK” requirements in May 2026, without “any individualized explanation for why continuous bodily surveillance had become necessary after release on less restrictive supervision” and without providing Petitioners an opportunity to be heard. Id. ¶¶ 1, 14–21, 35. Petitioners argue that the alleged lack of process prior to the imposition of more restrictive supervision conditions constituted a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process and an impermissible “arbitrary escalation.” Id. ¶¶ 26–38.In their Response [ 11 ], Respondents argue that the Petition [ 1 ] should be denied “because utilization of GPS monitoring as an alternative to detention is legally permissible” and point the court to several cases upholding the use of such monitoring over a petitioner’s due process claim. See Resp. 1–3 [ 11 ]. As Petitioners point out in their Reply [ 12 ], however, Respondents have failed to address the due process question at issue in this case: the question is not whether GPS monitoring can be imposed on a noncitizen as a condition of release, but whether such monitoring can be imposed on a previously-released noncitizen without providing the noncitizen notice and an opportunity to be heard.Accordingly, the court orders as follows: No later than Friday, July 10, 2026, Respondents must brief the court on their position regarding the due process issue raised in the Petition [ 1 ], as described supra. Petitioners may reply to the Respondents’ supplemental filing on this issue by no later than Friday, July 17, 2026.(MAP) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

Jul 02, 2026

Order