Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01200

#1

Jun 11, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5860080.), filed by Edgardo Sparks Maita. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Austin, Paige) (Entered: 06/11/2026)

#2

Jun 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Edgardo Sparks Maita So that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel, the respondents are enjoined from transferring the petitioner to any district outside the Western District of New York. See Perez y Perez v. Noem, 2025 WL 1908284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (collecting cases). In Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026), the Second Circuit held that noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are subject to detention under section 1226. And in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, 816 F. Supp. 3d 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court held that detention of noncitizens who have remained in the country following expiration of parole is under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not section 1225. Additionally, this Court held in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), "that constitutional due process requires the government to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is either a danger to the community or a flight risk even at an initial bond hearing under section 1226(a)." Id. at 598. It appears that the holdings of da Cunha, Alvarez Ortiz and/or Cabrera Martinez may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 6/18/2026, why, in light of those decisions, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 6/11/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 06/11/2026)

Jun 11, 2026

Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. (ARS)

Jun 11, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (ARS)

#3

Jun 17, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Adam A. Khalil, appearing on behalf of Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Stephen Kurzdorfer, Markwayne Mullin. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#4

Jun 17, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,, filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Stephen Kurzdorfer, Markwayne Mullin. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#5

Jun 17, 2026

Letter filed by Edgardo Sparks Maita Requesting the Court Address Release as the Appropriate Remedy for Counts Three and Four of His Petition. (Austin, Paige) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#6

Jun 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Edgardo Sparks Maita On June 11, 2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of this Court's decision in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, 816 F. Supp. 3d 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), "(1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay." Docket Item 2 . In response, the "[r]espondents acknowledge[d] that this Court's prior ruling [in Cabrera Martinez] concern[ed] a similar challenge to the government policy or practice at issue in this case, and if the Court follows that prior ruling, it would control the result in this case." Docket Item 4 at 2. The respondents have reserved all rights, including the right to appeal, and this Court appreciates their efforts "to conserve judicial and party resources" by not rehashing issues that this Court already has decided. See id. The petitioner counters that immediate release is the appropriate remedy. Docket Item 5 at 1. "Should further briefing or evidentiary filing be required for the Court to order that remedy, he respectfully requests that the Court order a schedule for such litigation concurrent with an interim order for a bond hearing." Id. The Court finds that further briefing is necessary for its consideration of the petitioner's request for immediate release. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Cabrera Martinez, the petition is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks a bond hearing under its first two claims and the respondents are ORDERED to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this order. At that hearing, the government shall bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. At that bond hearing, the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. If the respondents fail to provide such a hearing within seven calendar days, they shall immediately release the petitioner. On or before June 25, 2026, the respondents shall file a status report confirming that the petitioner has either been granted a bond hearing in compliance with this order or released from custody. On or before June 26, 2026, the respondents shall respond to the petitioner's argument regarding immediate release. The petitioner may reply on or before July 2, 2026. If necessary, oral argument will be scheduled at a later date. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 6/17/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#7

Jun 25, 2026

Letter filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Stephen Kurzdorfer, Markwayne Mullin re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#8

Jun 25, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 6 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,, re Petitioner's request for immediate release filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Stephen Kurzdorfer, Markwayne Mullin. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#9

Jul 02, 2026

Letter filed by Edgardo Sparks Maita Regarding Adjudication of His Remaining Claims & Return of His Property. (Austin, Paige) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#10

Jul 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On 6/17/2026, the Court granted the petition brought by the petitioner, Edgardo Sparks Maita, "to the extent it s[ought] a bond hearing under its first two claims" and ordered the respondents "to provide [Sparks Maita] with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge." Docket Item 6 . At that bond hearing, the government was to "bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that [Sparks Maita] is a danger to the community or a flight risk," and the immigration judge was to "consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, [Sparks Maita]'s ability to pay." Id. As to Sparks Maita's argument that immediate release was the proper remedy, the Court found that further briefing was necessary. See id. The respondents subsequently filed a letter indicating that an immigration judge held a bond hearing in compliance with this Court's order and Sparks Maita was ordered released on bond. See Docket Item 7 . Sparks Maita now has written to the Court to indicate that, in light of that order and his subsequent return home, he wishes "to forego seeking adjudication of his remaining legal claims and of his request for immediate release from custody." Docket Item 9 . The Court GRANTS this request and deems Sparks Maita's remaining claims moot. Sparks Maita also "note[s] that several important items of property were not returned to him upon his release and respectfully requests that to grant him full relief the Court order the return of his property." Id. That request is GRANTED and the respondents are ORDERED to coordinate with Sparks Maita's counsel the return of any of his possessions that have not yet been returned to him. On or before 8/4/2026, the parties shall file a status update on the return of Sparks Maita's property and specifying whether any issues remain before the Court. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/28/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#11

Jul 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The parties have informally advised the Court that they have reached an impasse as to the method of returning to the petitioner, Edgardo Sparks Maita, the personal property discussed in the Court's most recent order. In light of that update, the respondents shall either at their expense mail that property to Sparks Maita's attorney or release it to a relative of Sparks Maita, provided that that relative has an authorization letter signed by Sparks Maita. Upon either the mailing or release of Sparks Maita's property, the parties shall file a status update that also specifies whether any issues remain before the Court. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/28/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#12

Jul 30, 2026

Letter filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Stephen Kurzdorfer, Markwayne Mullin re no further issues. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

#13

Jul 31, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In light of the parties' update that the petitioner's property has been returned and "that there are no remaining issues for this Court to resolve," Docket Item 12, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this case. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/31/2026. (ZHM)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#14

Aug 03, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Edgardo Sparks Maita against Markwayne Mullin, Michael Ball, Stephen Kurzdorfer, Todd Blanche. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 8/3/2026. (TME) (Entered: 08/03/2026)