District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13315

#1

Jul 20, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11900970 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Jose Daniel Pineda Roa. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Roth, Stephen) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

#2

Jul 20, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Angel Kelley 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. (CAM) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

#3

Jul 20, 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). (CEH) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

#4

Jul 20, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Standing Order Regarding Motion Practice. (CEH) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

#5

Jul 20, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition, Stay of Transfer or Removal, and Required Response.(CEH) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

#6

Jul 20, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to AUSA Alexandra Brazier, Rayford Farquhar, and USAMA Civil Process on 7/20/2026 at 4:34 pm and mailed to All Respondents (CEH) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

Jul 20, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jul 20, 2026

Copy Mailed

#7

Jul 23, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin Tolkoff on behalf of Todd W. Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#8

Jul 23, 2026

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling, Todd W. Blanche, Antone Moniz, filed by Jose Daniel Pineda Roa.(Roth, Stephen) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#9

Jul 23, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Todd W. Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin. (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#10

Jul 23, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Jose Daniel Pineda Roa filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 20, 2026. [Dkt. 1]. Petitioner filed an Amended Complaint on July 23, 2026. [Dkt. 8]. That same day, Respondents filed an answer to the original Petition [Dkt. 1] and submitted "the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Edgar Fabricio Amaya Sanchez v. Moniz et al., 25-cv-12806-AK, Doc. No. 10 (D. Mass. October 8, 2025)," and "[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in Amaya Sanchez, it would reach the same result here." [Dkt. 9]. Respondents have not addressed Petitioner's Amended Complaint. The facts presented in the Amended Complaint also appear materially indistinguishable from Amaya Sanchez v. Moniz et al., No. 25-CV-12806-AK (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2025) [Dkt. 10], in which the Court joined other sessions of this Court, and other courts across the country, in holding that the arrest and detention of noncitizens within the United States is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). On the facts before it, the Court does not find reason to deviate from the analysis presented in Amaya Sanchez.Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to show cause, no later than three business days from the date of this Order, why the facts of this case differ from those in Amaya Sanchez. Should Respondents claim the facts differ, Petitioner shall have three business days to respond. (CEH) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

Jul 23, 2026

Order

#11

Aug 03, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Jose Daniel Pineda Roa filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 20, 2026. [Dkt. 1]. Petitioner filed an Amended Complaint on July 23, 2026. [Dkt. 8]. That same day, Respondents filed an answer to the original Petition [Dkt. 1] and submitted "the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Edgar Fabricio Amaya Sanchez v. Moniz et al., 25-cv-12806-AK, Doc. No. 10 (D. Mass. October 8, 2025)," and "[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in Amaya Sanchez, it would reach the same result here." [Dkt. 9]. In Amaya Sanchez, the Court joined other sessions of this Court, and other courts across the country, in holding that the arrest and detention of noncitizens within the United States is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). On July 23, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause, no later than three business days from the date of the Order, why the facts of this case differ from those in Amaya Sanchez. [Dkt. 10]. Respondents have not submitted and, therefore, waived their response to the Amended Petition.On the facts before it, the Court does not find reason to deviate from the analysis presented in Amaya Sanchez. Accordingly, Petitioner is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226’s discretionary detention framework and entitled to a bond hearing. He has not received such a hearing, so his detention is unlawful. Petitioner’s Amended Petition [Dkt. 8] is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 10 calendar days of this Order, unless Petitioner requests an extension. Respondents are ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The parties are ORDERED to file a status report within 14 calendar days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.(CEH) (Entered: 08/03/2026)

Aug 03, 2026

Order

#12

Aug 13, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Todd W. Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit BOND ORDER)(Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#13

Aug 13, 2026

First MOTION for Injunctive Relief Enforce Habeas by Jose Daniel Pineda Roa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petitioner's Bond Submission, # 2 Exhibit Respondent's Filing 1, # 3 Exhibit Respondent's Filing 2, # 4 Exhibit I-213, # 5 Exhibit IJ Order)(Roth, Stephen) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#14

Aug 26, 2026

RESPONSE to Motion re 13 First MOTION for Injunctive Relief Enforce Habeas filed by David Venturella, David Wesling. (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#15

Sep 04, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on Petitioner's Motion to Enforce (CEH) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#16

Sep 16, 2026

Second MOTION to Enforce Judgment by Jose Daniel Pineda Roa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Immigration Judge Order from September 15, 2026)(Roth, Stephen) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#17

Sep 17, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Todd W. Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bond Order)(Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#18

Oct 01, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On August 3, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner Jose Daniel Pineda Roa's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 11]. On August 13, 2026, Respondents filed a status report indicating that Petitioner received a bond hearing on August 10, 2026, at which the Immigration Judge ("IJ") found by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community. [Dkt. 12]. On August 13, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 13]. On September 4, 2026, the Court granted the Motion to Enforce because, in Petitioner's first bond hearing, the IJ (1) did not address the reliability of the evidence it relied upon, (2) did not address Petitioner's evidence, and (3) did not address alternatives to detention. [Dkt. 15]. Petitioner received a second bond hearing on September 11, 2026, in which the IJ, again, denied bond after finding Petitioner to be a danger to the community and, in the alternative, a flight risk. [Dkt. 16-1]. Before the Court is Petitioner's Second Motion to Enforce, which requests Petitioner's immediate release or, alternatively, a third bond hearing. [Dkt. 16]. The Court’s authority to review an Immigration Judge’s custody determination is “limited.” Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019). The Court may not reweigh the evidence or second-guess the IJ’s discretionary judgments. SeeDiaz-Calderon v. Barr, 535 F. Supp. 3d 669, 676 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (quoting Arellano v. Sessions, No. 18-CV-06625, 2019 WL 3387210, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. July 26, 2019)) (“[A] district court sitting in habeas. . . has no authority to encroach upon an IJ’s discretionary weighing of the evidence.”); Pensamiento v. McDonald, 315 F. Supp. 3d 684, 688 (D. Mass. 2018) (“Congress has eliminated judicial review of discretionary custody determinations.”); Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144 (court lacks jurisdiction to review an “immigration judge’s weighing of the evidence and exercise of discretion with respect to dangerousness”). The Court must likewise remain “mindful of [its] obligation to afford . . . a degree of deference to the determinations made below.” United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 882 (1st Cir. 1990). Here, the record reflects that the IJ appropriately weighed the Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F. 4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021) factors in determining that Petitioner is a danger to the community. [Dkt. 16-1 at 5-7]. In doing so, the IJ considered Petitioner's criminal history in detail, specifically addresses Petitioner's counter arguments, explicitly finds Respondent's evidence to be reliable, and "notes the positive equities contained in [Petitioner]'s case." [Id.]. Based upon this record, the IJ found "by clear and convincing evidence, that [Petitioner] poses a danger to the community and that there are no conditions or combination of conditions that could reasonably ensure the safety of the community." [Id. at 7]. The IJ also found in the alternative, that "DHS demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that [Petitioner] is a risk of flight." [Id.]. This Court is not allowed to reweigh that evidence or to “encroach upon an IJ’s discretionary weighing of the evidence.” Arellano, 2019 WL 3387210, at *7. Because Petitioner received a bond hearing and has not demonstrated that the IJ failed to apply the constitutional standard in making the bond determination, the Petitioner's Second Motion to Enforce [Dkt. 16] is DENIED. (CEH) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Oct 01, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#19

Oct 02, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On 8/3/2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s Habeas Petition. [Dkt. 11]. On 8/13/2026, Respondents provided a Status Report indicating that Petitioner received a bond hearing on 8/10/2026 and was denied bond because Petitioner was found to pose a danger to the community. [Dkt. 12]. On 8/13/2026, Petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce the Petition, which the Court granted on 9/4/2026. [Dkt. 15]. Petitioner's second bond hearing was held on 9/11/2026 and Petitioner was again denied bond because he was found to pose a danger to the community. [Dkt. 16]. Petitioner filed a Second Motion to Enforce, which the Court denied on 10/1/2026. [Dkt. 18]. As a result, absent objection within the next seven (7) calendar days, the Court will terminate the suit. (JAM) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

Oct 02, 2026

Order

#20

Oct 14, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. ORDER CLOSING CASE (CEH) (Entered: 10/14/2026)