District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12445

#1

May 30, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11778107 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Julio Cesar Garcia Montero. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Logan, Thomas) Modified on 6/1/2026: Removed duplicate text. (MAC) (Entered: 05/30/2026)

#2

May 30, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (svm) (Entered: 05/30/2026)

#3

Jun 01, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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 M. Page Kelley. (SP) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#4

Jun 01, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#5

Jun 01, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. Respondents shall determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and notify the Court no later than 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Friday, June 5, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#6

Jun 01, 2026

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) mailed to all respondents on 6/1/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

Jun 01, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jun 01, 2026

Copy Mailed

#7

Jun 02, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Jun 02, 2026

Response to Court Order

#9

Jun 02, 2026

Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to June 10, 2026 to File Response/Reply to Habeas Petition by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Todd M Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Name Unknown.(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#10

Jun 02, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered DENYING Petitioners' request for an emergency temporary restraining order. Petitioners' petition purports to seek an emergency temporary restraining order. See Dkt. 1 paras. 7, 96(e). To the extent Petitioners intend the Court to construe their petition simultaneously as a motion for a temporary restraining order, that would be improper. See Scott v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2025 WL 1314248, at *1 (D. Mass. Apr. 1, 2025) ("If a litigant seeks injunctive relief prior to the final resolution of the case, they must also file a separate motion for a preliminary injunction identifying the relief sought and an accompanying memorandum providing factual and legal support for the motion."). Further, Petitioners' filing fails to meet the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order pursuant to the Court's Local Rules or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which require, inter alia, (1) the submission of a memorandum of reasons to support any motion, see Local Rule 7.1(b)(1); and (2) either notice to the adverse party or certification to support an ex parte order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1); see also DuBois v. Alves, 2022 WL 4376041, at *5 (D. Mass. Aug. 22, 2022) (denying motion in part due to the failure to comply with Local Rules or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65). As such, Petitioners' request for an emergency temporary restraining order is DENIED without prejudice. (BIB) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#11

Jun 02, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 9 Assented to Motion for Extension of Time to June 10, 2026 to File Response to Habeas Petition. (BIB) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

Jun 02, 2026

Order

Jun 02, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#12

Jun 04, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioners are ordered to show cause on or before June 11, 2026, for why this case was filed as related to Mendez Lopez v. Hyde,1:26-cv-12063. See Dkt. 1 -1 at VIII. (MBM) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

Jun 04, 2026

Order

#13

Jun 07, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#14

Jun 08, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#15

Jun 08, 2026

Response to Court Order

#16

Jun 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT - Upon review of 15 Statement as to Related Case, this case is not deemed related to 26cv12063, Mendez Lopez v. Hyde, and will be sent back to the Clerk's Office for random reassignment. (BIB) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#17

Jun 09, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Reassignment. Judge Allison D. Burroughs 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. (LBO) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

Jun 09, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jun 09, 2026

Order

#18

Jun 10, 2026

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

#19

Jun 11, 2026

Amended Complaint

#20

Jun 12, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioners’ amended pleading combines a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus” with a “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” and an “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.” [ECF No. 19 at 1]; accord [ECF No. 1 at 1 (displaying the same title on original pleading)]. This action was designated at the time of filing as a habeas corpus petition. See [Dkt. No. 1 ].Though Petitioners’ amended pleading does allege that at least one petitioner is subject to ankle GPS monitoring, e.g., [ECF No. 19 ¶¶ 4, 58], and that all three Petitioners are at risk of future detention, [id. ¶¶ 10, 38, 44], the issues set forth in the pleading appear primarily to concern the possibility that Respondents might “seek to . . . deport [Petitioners] while their T-Visa applications are pending,” [id. ¶ 9], and Petitioners ask the Court to “compel Respondents to allow them to pursue their immigration proceedings as required by law,” [id.]. The amended pleading indicates that Petitioners are not presently detained and that Respondents “do not plan to detain the Petitioners” while a case review is pending. [Id. at 3 n.1]. Accordingly, it appears that the claims raised in the amended pleading, like those in the original proceeding, are not challenges to the lawfulness of custody but rather challenges to agency action concerning Petitioners’ potential removal.By June 26, 2026, Petitioners shall show cause why—in light of the issues raised in Respondents’ response, [ECF No. 18 ], and in the opinion of another session of this Court appended to that response, [ECF No. 18-2]—the action should not be dismissed on the basis that the relief sought is outside of this Court’s habeas jurisdiction.(CAM) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

Order To Show Cause

#21

Jun 25, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#22

Jul 06, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. A remote status conference is scheduled for July 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. One day prior to the conference, the parties should submit a brief joint statement setting forth (1) any issues on which they have reached agreement, including a brief summary of the substance of the agreement, and (2) any issues that remain in dispute, including a brief summary of the parties' positions on the dispute. The parties should also indicate whether they oppose a stay of this matter while Plaintiffs' T-Visa application is reviewed. ( Status Conference set for 7/15/2026 09:00 AM in Remote Proceeding : Boston before Judge Allison D. Burroughs.)(CAM) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

Jul 06, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings

#23

Jul 14, 2026

Status Report

Jul 14, 2026

1 - Terminate Hearings AND Order AND ~Util - Case Stayed