District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13216

#1

Jul 14, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11885765 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Williamson Rivette. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Hargus, Daniela) Modified on 7/14/2026 to remove duplicate text (LBO). (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#2

Jul 14, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Patti B. Saris 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 M. Page Kelley. (JKK) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#3

Jul 14, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. SERVICE ORDER re 2241 Petition. Order entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243 governing Section 2241 cases for service on respondents. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than July 17, 2026. (CAM) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#4

Jul 14, 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). (CAM) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#5

Jul 14, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition, mailed to Respondents and courtesy copy emailed to Duty AUSA on 7/14/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

Jul 14, 2026

General Order 19-02

Jul 14, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jul 14, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Jul 17, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Todd Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella, David Wesling (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#7

Jul 17, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Todd Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#8

Jul 21, 2026

MOTION for Leave to File Reply by Williamson Rivette.(Hargus, Daniela) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

#9

Jul 21, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWED re 8 Motion for Leave to File Reply by Williamson Rivette. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (CGK) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

Jul 21, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

#10

Aug 04, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Williamson Rivette. "The Court has granted Petitioner leave to file a reply in support of his habeas petition. See Dkt. 9 . Any reply shall be filed by Monday, August 10, 2026." (CGK) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

Aug 04, 2026

Order

#11

Aug 10, 2026

Petitioners' REPLY to 7 Response by Williamson Rivette . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Hargus, Daniela) Modified docket text on 8/11/2026 in accordance with document filed. (CGK). (Entered: 08/10/2026)

#12

Aug 11, 2026

Notice of Supplemental Authorities re 8 MOTION for Leave to File Reply (Hargus, Daniela) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#13

Aug 14, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Williamson Rivette. Petitioner Williamson Rivette ("Petitioner") has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his immigration detention without a bond hearing. The government contends Petitioner is not eligible for a bond hearing because he is subject to mandatory detention both (1) under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) after his humanitarian parole expired and (2) under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) pursuant to the Laken Riley Act due to his arrest and criminal charge for aggravated rape. Petitioner argues that his detention without a bond hearing after the expiration of his parole violates due process and that he is not subject to mandatory detention under the Laken Riley Act because he was exonerated by DNA evidence and his criminal charge was nolle prossed.Petitioner, a citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on February 10, 2024. U.S. Customs and Border Protection released Petitioner on humanitarian parole pursuant to its authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). The parole period expired on June 12, 2025. On July 23, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated rape. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Petitioner on August 7 or 8, 2025. In February 2026, Petitioner's charge for aggravated rape was nolle prossed. Petitioner filed his habeas petition on July 14, 2026. The Laken Riley Act added a new subparagraph to § 1226(c) that makes detention mandatory for noncitizens who satisfy two conditions. First, the noncitizen must be "inadmissible under paragraph (6)(A), (6)(C), or (7) of [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)]." 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E)(i). Second, the noncitizen must be, as relevant here, "charged with,... arrested for, [or]... convicted of... any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person." Id. § 1226(c)(1)(E)(ii). Petitioner does not dispute that he is inadmissible under one of the relevant paragraphs or that the crime for which he was arrested and charged qualifies as an enumerated offense under the Laken Riley Act. Instead, Petitioner argues that the Laken Riley Act does not apply because his criminal charge was dismissed. The Court agrees. Courts within this district and elsewhere have held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) "does not compel detention where charges have been dismissed." H.A. v. Genalo, No. 26-cv-2706, 2026 WL 1159512, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2026) (quoting Rivera Guzman v. Artela, No. 26-cv-2808, 2026 WL 1045920, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2026)) (collecting cases); accord Rosas de Blas v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-12697 (D. Mass. June 22, 2026), Dkt. 11. Here, Petitioner's charge was nolle prossed, so he is no longer subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c). This Court recently addressed the issue of a noncitizen's detention and right to a bond hearing after the expiration of parole in Mesidor v. Moniz, __ F. Supp. 3d __ (D. Mass. 2026) [2026 WL 2333634]. Based on the reasoning in that case, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing because he lived in the country following the expiration of his parole. See id. at __ [2026 WL 2333634, at *1]. The immigration judge can determine whether Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community.Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1 ) is ALLOWED. Petitioner shall be provided with a bond hearing within seven business days of the date of this order. No later than fourteen days from the date of this order, the government shall file a status report confirming that Petitioner has received a bond hearing (or has been released in lieu of a bond hearing) and stating the outcome of the bond hearing.(BEL) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

#14

Aug 14, 2026

SET DEADLINES as to: STATUS REPORT due by 8/28/2026. (BEL) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

Aug 14, 2026

Order