District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12688

#1

Jun 13, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#2

Jun 15, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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)

#3

Jun 15, 2026

General Order 19-02

#4

Jun 15, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

Jun 15, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jun 18, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Jun 22, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Timothy Baptiste, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin. (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#7

Jun 26, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having considered the Petition of Fernando Pires Da Costa ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 1, and the government's response, D. 6, the Court ALLOWS the Petition to the following extent. As Respondents acknowledge, "the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde," D. 6 at 1; see Order, Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde et al., No. 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14 and cases cited. Consistent with the Court's ruling in Dias De Carvalho, the Court concludes that Petitioner's custody is covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determination of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), see Dias De Carvalho, No. 25-cv-12677-DJC, D. 14. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. See Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61, 71 (2d Cir. 2026) (affirming that petitioner's detention "is governed by Section 1226(a) and that he is entitled to a bond hearing … consistent with the decisions of … over ninety percent of district court judges"). Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. To the extent that Petitioner seeks an order prohibiting his interstate transfer outside the District of Massachusetts, D. 1 ¶¶ 12, 56-57, such request fails, see De Brito Fialho v. Baptiste et al, 26-cv-10950-DJC, D. 8 (D. Mass. Mar. 9. 2026) (declining to prohibit transfer where the petitioner failed to establish circumstances warranting such relief). (EZG) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Order