District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13020

#1

Jun 30, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11856367 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Carlos Avelino Miranda Navarro. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Dill, Nicole) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#2

Jun 30, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (CM) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#3

Jul 01, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns 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 Paul G. Levenson. (LBO) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#4

Jul 01, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. (JAM) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#5

Jul 01, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Order mailed to Antone Moniz, Patricia Hyde, David Venturella, Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche on 7/1/2026. (JAM) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#6

Jul 01, 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). (JAM) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jul 01, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Jul 08, 2026

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

#8

Jul 09, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The court denied a prior habeas petition filed by petitioner on the grounds that, as an individual stopped at the border and only released on parole, he remained subject to the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). The government would have the court dismiss on that basis, arguing that this case is an unlawful second and successive petition. But given the central allegation in the Petition -- namely, that petitioner's prior order of removal was vacated after the government failed to timely provide him with a credible fear interview, such that his current removal proceedings fall under Section 1226(a) -- the court is inclined to first give petitioner an opportunity to explain why his petition is not subject to dismissal as a second and successive petition and to substantiate his assertion that Section 1225(b)(1) no longer applies. Petitioner accordingly is ordered to respond to the government's opposition by July 17, 2026. (RGS, law3) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

Jul 09, 2026

Order