Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00999

#1

May 28, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9610966), filed by MANUEL DE JESUS CLIMACO MAYORGA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Gibbs, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

May 28, 2026

Judge Arthur J. Schwab added. (jd)

#2

May 29, 2026

Case Management Order

#3

May 29, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by MANUEL DE JESUS CLIMACO MAYORGA re 2 Case Management Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Proof of Service via email) (Gibbs, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#4

Jun 02, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Jerome A. Moschetta on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, TODD LYONS, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL ROSE. (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#5

Jun 09, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by TODD BLANCHE, TODD LYONS, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL ROSE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#6

Jun 10, 2026

REPLY BRIEF re 5 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by MANUEL DE JESUS CLIMACO MAYORGA. (Gibbs, Stephanie) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

#7

Jun 18, 2026

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by MANUEL DE JESUS CLIMACO MAYORGA. Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States ("U.S.") without inspection at or between ports of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border on or about 2003 and was detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on April 26, 2026, in Virginia. Removal proceedings against Petitioner are pending and not final. The issue before the Court is whether Petitioner is subject to discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). For the reasons stated in Rivera Juarez v. Oddo et al., 3:26-cv-718 (W.D. Pa) (Schwab, J.) (Doc. 10), the Court finds that Petitioner's detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. §1226(a). See also Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr. Miami, 175 F.4th 1258 (11th Cir. 2026); Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 175 F.4th 828 (7th Cir. 2026); Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS filed by PETITIONER, and ISSUES the writ on these terms:(1) Respondents shall cause Petitioner to be taken to a neutral immigration judge of the Executive Office of Immigration Review for an individualized bond hearing to occur within 30 days of this order, or else release Petitioner by such date; (2) Respondents shall ensure that such a hearing include the required due process, i.e., at a minimum, factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to Petitioner; an opportunity to make arguments on the Petitioner's behalf; and the right to an individualized determination of Petitioner's interests. See Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022); and (3) Petitioner shall be responsible for securing the necessary transcripts and record of the bond hearing. The Court trusts the immigration judge to comply with this order and ensure that Petitioner is provided due process, and therefore, the immigration judge shall explain his or her individualized determination on the record. See Kamara v. Atty Gen. of U.S., 420 F.3d 202, 212 (3d Cir. 2005). Otherwise, the 1 habeas petition is DENIED. In particular, Petitioner's request for immediate release from custody is denied, and for the reasons set forth in this Court's May 11, 2026 Memorandum Order denying the petitioners Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to Prevent Removal and Transfer of Petitioner in Dias Souza v. Warden, Moshannon Valley ICE Processing Center et al., 3:26-cv-824, Doc. 7 at 3-4, this Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin Petitioner's transfer to another facility while this matter is pending and thus, Petitioner's request that Respondents be enjoined from transferring Petitioner out of this judicial district during the pendency of this litigation is denied. Finally, the Court finds that Respondents' position was substantially justified in this case, so no costs or fees shall be awarded pursuant to EAJA. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 6-18-26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bfm) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

#8

Jun 18, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)

Jun 18, 2026

Order