District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12419

#1

May 28, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11775015 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by LUIS MANUEL CABA FRANCISCO. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL)(Medrano Santana, Oriosto) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#2

May 29, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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 Donald L. Cabell. (FGD) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#3

May 29, 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). (FGD) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#4

May 29, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. The petitioner seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. No. 1 . The Court has conducted an initial review of the petition and notes the following. This is the second habeas petition filed by this petitioner, who is a citizen of the Dominican Republic and a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) of the United States. The Court denied his first petition on its merits yesterday. See Electronic Order, Caba Francisco v. Mullin, No. 26-cv-12043 (D. Mass. May 28, 2026), ECF No. 13. That ruling arose from legal arguments advanced by the government in opposition to the first petition, to which the petitioner did not respond despite an order by this Court directing him to do so. Id. The government’s opposition, and the Court’s ruling, relied on immigration statutes specifying that LPRs are “regarded as seeking admission into the United States,” and therefore subject to inspection at the border as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1225, if they have “committed an offense identified in” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), unless they have secured certain forms of discretionary waivers that the petitioner here did not (and does not now) claim to have obtained. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The referenced offenses include “a violation of” any state law “relating to a controlled substance,” and the inadmissibility statute reaches beyond convictions for such offenses to include any person “who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of,” any controlled-substance offense. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Considering the plain language of those statutes, the exhibits the government produced showing the petitioner had admitted in state court to facts supporting a finding that he had violated two state laws concerning controlled substances, and the absence of any evidence or argument to the contrary by the petitioner, the Court concluded the petitioner’s detention upon his return from abroad last month was authorized by § 1225, and so it denied his petition.Now, the petitioner returns with a new petition. His submission does not explain his failure to respond to the government’s legal arguments and factual showing in opposition to his first petition, nor does it offer a belated response to those legal arguments. Doc. No. 1 . Instead, it asserts that his prior state-court proceedings did not yield a “conviction” and therefore cannot provide a basis for his current and continued detention, nor justify a potential future finding by an immigration judge that he is subject to removal. As relief, he seeks (1) a stay of his removal from the United States; (2) a declaration that his state-court matter did not result in a “conviction” for purposes of one particular statute and is not a “final conviction” for immigration purposes; (3) an order releasing him from custody or requiring an individualized bond hearing; and (4) an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. Doc. No. 1 at 11. Where challenges to immigration detention and the removal process are concerned, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited by both the traditional scope of habeas review and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The latter forecloses this Court’s review of most aspects of the removal process described in § 1225 and nearly all discretionary decisions in the immigration context, and provides for direct appeal following an order of removal to the Court of Appeals rather than to this Court. The Court has serious doubts whether it is empowered to entertain the petitioner’s second habeas action. The first two forms of relief enumerated above—a stay of removal pending the outcome of state-court proceedings, and a declaration of law concerning a matter that is subject to ongoing administrative proceedings and would thereafter be appealable through the ordinary course to the BIA and eventually the First Circuit—appear to fall well outside this Court’s traditional habeas authority. The third seeks the same relief this Court denied a day ago without addressing or responding to the statutory arguments the government advanced the first time around.In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows. The petitioner shall, by June 9, 2026, SHOW CAUSE why this Court has jurisdiction over the claims he has alleged and jurisdiction to grant the relief he seeks. The petitioner’s memorandum also shall address the statutory arguments advanced by the government in opposition to the previous petition. The respondents’ obligation to answer the petition is STAYED pending the Court’s review of the petitioner’s show-cause response. The Court further ORDERS that, to preserve the status quo so that it can ascertain whether or to what extent it has jurisdiction over this action, the respondents shall not remove the petitioner from the United States pending further order of this Court, and they shall not transfer the petitioner out of the District of Massachusetts without 72 hours’ prior notice to the Court and the petitioner’s counsel.(FGD) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#5

May 29, 2026

Copy re 4 Order to Show Cause, Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), mailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 5/29/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

May 29, 2026

Copy Mailed

May 29, 2026

Order To Show Cause AND Service Order-2241 Petition

#6

Jun 08, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#7

Jun 12, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. The petitioner in these two related habeas actions has filed in both matters a document: a) requesting that proceedings related to his earlier petition (26cv12043) be reopened, and b) and responding to the Court’s show-cause order in the later action (26cv12419). The first request is DENIED. Nothing in this submission responds to the legal arguments the respondents advanced in seeking the dismissal of the earlier action or otherwise establishes a basis to reopen that action. Though the submission suggests the petitioner wishes to file at some future date a reply brief that was due on May 21, it neither attaches nor describes a proposed brief, nor does it propose a deadline for filing such a brief. As to the second purpose referenced in the title of the submission, the content of the document does not meaningfully advance any basis for finding jurisdiction or countering the merits of the statutory arguments the government advanced to justify its detention of the petitioner. To provide the petitioner one more chance to address these issues—as articulated in some detail and in the Court’s May 29, 2026 show-cause order entered in the later case—the Court hereby EXTENDS the show-cause deadline as follows.The petitioner shall, by June 22, 2026, SHOW CAUSE why this Court has jurisdiction over the claims he has alleged and jurisdiction to grant the relief he seeks in his federal petitions. The petitioner’s memorandum also shall address the statutory arguments advanced by the government in opposition to the earlier petition. Failure to address these issues by that date may result in dismissal of the second petition. The petitioner’s filing shall be made in the later-filed case (26cv12419). The respondents’ obligation to make any further filings remains STAYED pending further Order of this Court. And the Court’s existing order preserving the status quo by prohibiting the petitioner’s removal from the United States, or his transfer out of Massachusetts without 72 hours’ notice, remains in place.(SED) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

Order To Show Cause

#8

Jun 15, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#9

Jun 23, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The respondents shall file a memorandum responding to the petitioner’s show-cause submission, in which they address the following issues: 1) the Court’s jurisdiction over the narrow due process claim seeking a bond hearing that is included in the petition and further described in the show-cause submission; 2) the effect, if any, of the procedural events that have transpired since the respondents answered the earlier petition (i.e., the filing of a motion for a new trial in state court, and the order of removal issued by an immigration judge) on the legal positions advanced by the respondents in their prior memorandum; and 3) any other issues the respondents wish to address. This memorandum is due June 30, 2026, and shall be limited to fifteen pages in length.(FGD) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

Jun 23, 2026

Order