District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-07189

#1

Jun 16, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, filed by MARVIN D. GARRO PINTO. (Received via ADS)(wh) Modified on 6/17/2026 (wh). (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#2

Jun 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Respondents are hereby enjoined from transferring Petitioner from New Jersey pending further Order of the Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 6/17/2026. N/M(wh) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

Jun 17, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#3

Jun 18, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon pro se Petitioner Marvin D. Garro Pinto's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. D.E. 1 ("Petition and TRO Motion"). Petitioner challenges his mandatory detention by immigration authorities under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as unlawful and in violation of his liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petition. With his Petition, Petitioner also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking an order enjoining his transfer or removal from outside the District of New Jersey and for his immediate release. Id. Petitioner failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) or pay the filing fee. Petitioner has not established that he is unable to pay the $5 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Therefore, the Court will defer ruling on Petitioner's IFP application pursuant to Brown v. Sage, 941 F.3d 655, 660 (3d Cir. 2019) ("a court has the discretion to consider the merits of a case and evaluate an IFP application in either order or even simultaneously."). To avoid administrative dismissal of this action, Petitioner shall pay the $5 filing fee or submit a completed IFP application on this Court's Form AO-239, within three days.In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases ("Habeas Rule 4"), applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b), scope of the Rules, this Court has screened the Petition for dismissal and determined dismissal without a full answer is not warranted. It is ORDERED that, if Respondents contest Petitioner's factual allegations and/or assert this case is distinguishable from the cases in this district previously addressing § 1225, they shall file an expedited answer within three days of the date of entry of this Order, and Petitioner may file a reply within three days of the date of filing of Respondents' expedited answer. If Respondents do not file an expedited answer, under this Court's decision in Lomeu v. Soto, No. 25-16589, 2025 WL 2981296, at *9 (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2025), and other recent decisions in this District interpreting § 1225, including Rivera Zumba v. Bondi, No. 25-14626, 2025 WL 2753496 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025) (interpreting § 1225(b)(2)), Rivas Rodriguez v. Rokosky, No. 25-17419, 2025 WL 3485628 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2025) (interpreting § 1225(b)(1)), accepting Petitioner's allegations as true, the Court holds Petitioner's mandatory detention under Section 1225(b) is unlawful and further violates his liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. If Respondents do not file an expedited answer, and if Petitioner has paid the $5 filing fee or submitted a properly completed IFP application on this Court's Form AO-239, they shall instead release Petitioner within five days of this Order and file a written notice of Petitioner's release within three days. If Respondents subsequently detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), they shall comply with the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8) and (d). The TRO Motion is DENIED as MOOT because this Court has enjoined Petitioner's transfer from New Jersey and ordered an expedited resolution of this matter. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 6/18/2026. (bt) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

Text Order

#4

Jun 21, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Jun 21, 2026

Letter

Jun 22, 2026

Terminate Civil Case

Jun 22, 2026

Text Order