District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13676

#1

Dec 04, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11397849 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Lidson Ferreira Bastos. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Nader, Eliana) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

#2

Dec 04, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (SEC) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

#3

Dec 04, 2025

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

#4

Dec 04, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (FGD) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

#5

Dec 04, 2025

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition sent to Duty AUSA via email and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 12/4/2025. (FGD) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

Dec 04, 2025

Copy Mailed

Dec 04, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Dec 05, 2025

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In their answer to the petition, the respondents shall address whether this petitioner falls within the class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873 (C.D. Cal.), and, if so, the effect if any of the orders made in that case on this petitioner, see, e.g., id., Order Granting Pl. Pet’rs’ Mot. Class Cert. at 14-15 (Nov. 25, 2025), ECF No. 82 (certifying “Bond Eligible Class” and extending to that class declaratory relief previously granted to individual petitioners).(FGD) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

#7

Dec 05, 2025

Copy re 6 Order, emailed to Duty AUSA on 12/5/2025. (FGD) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

Dec 05, 2025

Copy Mailed

Dec 05, 2025

Order

#8

Dec 08, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#9

Dec 09, 2025

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

#10

Dec 09, 2025

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Today, the respondents filed an abbreviated answer to the habeas petition in this case. Doc. No. 9. However, on December 5, 2025, this Court ordered the respondents to address in their answer “whether this petitioner falls within the class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873 (C.D. Cal.), and, if so, the effect if any of the orders made in that case on this petitioner.” Doc. No. 6. The answer the respondents filed fails to acknowledge or address these questions. No later than close of business tomorrow, December 10, 2025, the respondents shall supplement their answer with a submission that addresses the questions as previously directed by the Court.In the meantime, the respondents have conceded that the issues raised in this habeas petition “are similar to those addressed by this Court” in various other recent cases, and that this petitioner is entitled to “the same result” if “the Court follow[s] its reasoning in” those case, Doc. No. 9 at 1, thereby waiving any arguments opposing this petition that were not presented in the respondents’ briefing in those prior cases. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the habeas petition (Doc. No. 1) is ALLOWED as follows: 1) the respondents shall release Lidson Ferreira Bastos unless he is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by December 12, 2025; 2) if a bond hearing occurs, the familiar standards identified by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 42 (1st Cir. 2021), shall apply; 3) the respondents shall not retaliate against the petitioner in the context of the bond hearing or otherwise for filing this habeas petition; and 4) the respondents shall file a status report no later than December 16, 2025, describing their compliance with this Order.(FGD) (Entered: 12/09/2025)

#11

Dec 09, 2025

Response to Court Order

Dec 09, 2025

Order

#12

Dec 16, 2025

Status Report

#13

Dec 19, 2025

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court ALLOWED the habeas petition in this case via electronic order dated December 9, 2025. Doc. No. 10. At that time, the Court also ordered the respondents to supplement their answer to the petition, because their original submission failed to address a specific question identified by the Court as an issue “the respondents shall address” in their answer. Doc. No. 6 (emphasis added); see Doc. No. 10. Later that day, the respondents made a submission addressing that issue. Doc. No. 11. In the filing, which they styled as an “advisory,” id. at 1, the respondents suggested “the Court should dismiss or, in the alternative, stay this action” because the petitioner is within the scope of a class that has been certified in an action pending in the Central District of California, id. at 2. As support for their suggestion that class membership precluded this petitioner from challenging his unlawful immigration detention here and/or should have prevented this Court from entering its order directing the respondents to provide the petitioner the bond hearing to which he was legally entitled, the respondents cited three cases. The Court has reviewed those cases, and none of them support the respondents’ position. One is a decision in which the Supreme Court outlined general principles applicable to class actions, including the unremarkable concept that unnamed class members “may” be bound by the judgment. United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 584 U.S. 381, 387 (2018). The other two are cases specifically addressing whether individual inmates in Texas prisons may file suits challenging conditions of confinement that are already the subject of final decrees governing such conditions—a scenario that the respondents concede is not presented here. See Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Oliver v. Scott, No. 3:98-cv-2246-H, 2000 WL 140745, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2000). Accordingly, to the extent the respondents intended their “advisory” to convey a request that this Court reconsider or revise its order granting the petition in this case, it is DENIED due to the respondents’ failure to advance that request in the proper form, to include such a request in their original answer as the Court directed, and to cite any relevant supporting authority. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the significance, if any, to this habeas petition of the pending class action in the Central District of California is not a matter requiring resolution.(FGD) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#14

Dec 19, 2025

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT (FGD) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

Dec 19, 2025

Order