District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13525

#1

Nov 24, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11376050 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Jackson Javier Bautista Guerrero. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Celli, Melissa) (Main Document 1 replaced on 11/24/2025) (NMC). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/24/2025: # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6) (NMC). (Entered: 11/24/2025)

#2

Nov 24, 2025

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 Donald L. Cabell. (JAM) (Entered: 11/24/2025)

#3

Nov 24, 2025

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Celina B. Curillo Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-11376133 by Jackson Javier Bautista Guerrero.(Celli, Melissa) (Entered: 11/24/2025)

#4

Nov 24, 2025

General Order 19-02

#5

Nov 24, 2025

Service Order-2241 Petition

#6

Nov 24, 2025

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), mailed to All respondents and emailed AUSA Duty Attorney on 11/24/2025. (MBM) (Entered: 11/24/2025)

#7

Nov 24, 2025

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 3 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Celina B. Curillo. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (MBM) (Entered: 11/24/2025)

Nov 24, 2025

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

Nov 24, 2025

Copy Mailed

Nov 24, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#8

Dec 01, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#9

Dec 01, 2025

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#10

Dec 01, 2025

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 9 Assented to Motion for Extension of Time to File Response until 12/2/2025 to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). (BIB) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

Dec 01, 2025

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

#11

Dec 02, 2025

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

#12

Dec 08, 2025

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. This Petition is DENIED without prejudice. On November 13, 2025, in a separate habeas action, this Court ordered that Petitioner receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226. Guerrero Bautista v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-13295-BEM (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2025). Thereafter, on November 20, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing in immigration court, and the immigration judge denied bond on the merits. Dkt. 1 para. 32. On November 24, 2025, Petitioner again sought a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Dkt. 1. While Petitioner seems to suggest that the immigration judge erred in denying bond, see id. paras. 32-33, Petitioner does not allege that the immigration judge applied the wrong constitutional standard. Cf. Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021). Such is not apparent from the face of the immigration judge’s Order. See Dkt. 11 -1 at 2 (reciting the correct “clear and convincing” standard). Furthermore, the record does not indicate that Petitioner has sought an appeal, see id. at 3 (indicating that Petitioner has reserved the right to appeal), leaving the Court little basis to evaluate what legal standards were actually applied. Petitioner has not otherwise made a sufficient showing for the Court to conclude, as a matter of law, that the immigration judge could not have found that Petitioner was a “danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.” See id. at 2.The remainder of Plaintiffs’ petition concerns alleged failures to provide adequate medical care while in custody. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 para. 5. Such challenges do not go to the “fact of [Petitioner’s] confinement” and are therefore outside this Court’s habeas jurisdiction. See Gonzalez-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864, 873 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991)).(MBM) (Entered: 12/08/2025)

#13

Dec 08, 2025

Judgment

Dec 08, 2025

Order

#14

Dec 09, 2025

Reconsideration

Dec 11, 2025

Order on Motion for Reconsideration