District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12619

#1

Jun 09, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11804419 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Juan Alberto Lemus Tejada. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Macmurray, Kevin) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#2

Jun 09, 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 Donald L. Cabell. (LBO) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#3

Jun 09, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL (MAP) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#4

Jun 09, 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: 06/09/2026)

Jun 09, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jun 11, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Jun 12, 2026

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

#7

Jun 12, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER REASSIGNING CASE.This case is to be transferred to Judge Murphy as related to 25cv13479-BEM Lemus Tejada v. Moniz et al. (MAP) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

Order Reassigning Case

#8

Jun 15, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#9

Jun 15, 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (SP) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

Jun 15, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#10

Jun 16, 2026

Notice of Manual Filing

#11

Jun 18, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER DENYING in part 1 Petitioner’s petition. The Court cannot find that no reasonable immigration judge could have found that the government’s evidence proved by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community. See Miti v. Moniz, 2026 WL 884639, at *6 (Mar. 31, 2026). However, notwithstanding the assumed adequacy of the first bond hearing, courts have applied Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), to determine whether due process warrants an additional bond hearing after prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a). See generally Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021); Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, both parties are ordered to submit supplemental briefing of no greater than 15 pages in length on or before Friday, June 26, 2026, (1) addressing the propriety of applying Mathews to determine whether an additional bond hearing is warranted, and (2) applying the Mathews factors to the facts of Petitioner’s detention. (MBM) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

Order

#12

Jun 24, 2026

Brief - not related to a motion

#13

Jun 25, 2026

Extension of Time

#14

Jun 26, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 13 Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time to June 30, 2026 to File Supplemental Briefing Pursuant to Court Order. (BIB) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#15

Jun 30, 2026

Response to Court Order

#16

Jul 06, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered DENYING 1 Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention under the Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1 paras. 4, 43–46. Petitioner’s detention unquestionably constitutes a “significant deprivation of liberty.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 27 (1st Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). And in other circumstances, sixteen months of detention under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a), after an initial bond hearing may well run afoul of the Due Process Clause. However, here, where (1) Petitioner focuses on the duration of his detention, and does not identify any reason to expect that the outcome of a second bond hearing might be different than that of the first, and (2) his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order of removal is currently pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, Dkt. 1 para. 3, the Court does not find that Petitioner’s detention without an additional bond hearing violates his due process rights at this stage, see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 343 (1976) (considering the “probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards”). If Petitioner identifies new evidence or a relevant change in circumstances that warrants a second bond hearing, he can seek a bond redetermination under the appropriate regulations. See 8 C.F.R. s. 1003.19(e). Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. (MBM) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#17

Jul 06, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT. In accordance with this Court’s Order (ECF #16) issued on July 6, 2026, denying the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED: Judgment for the Respondents against the Petitioner. (MBM) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

Jul 06, 2026

Order