District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13468

#1

Jul 30, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (EZG) Modified on 7/30/2026: "Exhibit F" missing from filing despite being listed on "Exhibit List" (EZG). (Entered: 07/30/2026)

#2

Jul 30, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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. (SP) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

#3

Jul 30, 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). (EZG) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

#4

Jul 30, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (EZG) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

Jul 30, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jul 31, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $ 5.00, receipt number 100016169 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), (LBO) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

Jul 31, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#6

Aug 03, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin Tolkoff on behalf of Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/03/2026)

#7

Aug 11, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin. (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#8

Aug 24, 2026

AMENDED AND EXPANDED Supplement to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and EMERGENCY MOTION for Custody Redetermination by Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso. (EZG) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#9

Aug 25, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 8 MOTION filed by Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso. In light of Petitioner's supplement to the Petition, D. 8, the Court gives the government until August 31, 2026 to respond to same. The government's response shall clarify whether Petitioner has now received an individualized bond hearing, what the immigration judge's findings and rulings were (attaching a copy of same) and shall respond to Petitioner's contention about the standard of proof applied at same. (SEC) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

Aug 25, 2026

Order

#10

Sep 01, 2026

RESPONSE to Motion re 8 MOTION and Motion to Strike Improperly Filed Motion to Enforce filed by Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bond Order)(Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#11

Sep 01, 2026

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING by Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin re 10 Response to Motion Bond Hearing Audio Recording and Exhibits (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#12

Sep 03, 2026

Petitioner's EMERGENCY MOTION for Immediate Release and/or Summary Grant of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Due to Respondents' Default and Failure to Comply with Court Order by Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso. (EZG) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#13

Sep 04, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 12 MOTION for Immediate Release. The Court has received the motion of Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso ("Petitioner"), filed pro se, for immediate release, D. 12. Petitioner is not entitled to relief simply because the government filed their response to Petitioner's supplemental filing one day late, D. 10 at 1; see Quinones-Torres v. United States, 240 F. App'x 876, 878 (1st Cir. 2007) (providing that appellant not entitled to default judgment "simply because the government did not file an opposition to his habeas petition"). This is particularly true where, as Respondents point out with Petitioner’s prior motion, D. 8, this motion was unnoticed and did not comply with Local Rule 7.1, a rule that applies to pro se litigants. Le v. New England Swimming, 24-11559-NMG, 2026 WL 1453485, at *1 (D. Mass. May 21, 2026) and cases cited. Accordingly, the Court denies this ground for the relief that Petitioner seeks. Conversely, the Court will not strike this filing as the government seeks to do as to Petitioner’s prior filing, D. 8, for failure to comply with the Local Rules but instead ORDERS as follows. Petitioner’s motion, D. 12, is denied to the extent that it sought his immediate release, but the Court ORDERS that the government respond to the substance of the motion, D. 12, by September 10, 2026 and that such response address the status of Petitioner’s medical care. See Peruano v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-10300-LTS, 2026 WL 1413758, at *3 (D. Mass. May 20, 2026).(SEC) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

Sep 04, 2026

Order

#14

Sep 08, 2026

Petitioner's MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; AND MOTION for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso. (EZG) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#16

Sep 10, 2026

Second RESPONSE to Motion re 12 MOTION, 8 MOTION filed by Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin. (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#17

Sep 15, 2026

Petitioner's EMERGENCY MOTION and Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), Demanding Immediate Release or EMERGENCY Custody Redetermination, and MOTION for Court-Directed Service of Certified Copies by Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso. (EZG) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#18

Sep 15, 2026

Petitioner's MEMORANDUM in Support re 17 Petitioner's EMERGENCY MOTION and Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), Demanding Immediate Release or EMERGENCY Custody Redetermination, and MOTION for Court-Directed Service of Certified Copies filed by Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit I, # 3 Exhibit J, # 4 Exhibit K, # 5 Exhibit L, # 6 Exhibit M, # 7 Exhibit N, # 8 Exhibit O, # 9 Exhibit P, # 10 Exhibit Q) (EZG) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#19

Sep 17, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having considered the petition ("Petition") of Mauricio Alexis Gonzalez Donoso ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 1, the government's response to same, D. 7, Petitioner's supplemental filing, D. 8, the government's response and motion to strike same, D. 10, Petitioner's emergency motion, D. 12, the government's additional response, D. 16, Petitioner's further motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel, D. 14, and the audio recording of Petitioner's bond hearing, D. 11, the Court DENIES Petitioner's requests for relief, D. 1; D. 8; D. 12, with the exception of his request to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 14.Factual Background. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Chile. D. 1-2 at 8. He entered the United States on or around December 9, 2024 on a nonimmigrant visa valid through June 30, 2025, which he overstayed. Id. On January 22, 2026, Petitioner was convicted of indecent assault and battery under Mass. Gen. L. c. 265, § 13H, id. at 11; D. 1-3 at 2-5; see D. 11 (explaining that conviction arose out of Petitioner grabbing a passenger's breast while working as a Lyft driver); D. 16 at 3. He was incarcerated for three months for same, D. 1 ¶ 8, and, upon completion of his state sentence, was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), id. ¶ 12. As alleged, Petitioner has a Form I-914 application for a T-visa as the family member of a T-1 visa recipient pending. See, e.g., D. 1-4 at 2; see D. 1 ¶¶ 16-19.On August 6, 2026, Petitioner received notice of a "custody hearing" scheduled for August 10, 2026. D. 8 at 2. At such hearing, the government provided the immigration judge (the "IJ") with a police report and the state court docket and argued that Petitioner was a danger to the community. Id.; D. 11. Ultimately, the IJ found Petitioner to be a danger to the community based upon his conviction. D. 8 at 2; D. 11. The next day, on August 11, 2026, Petitioner had an individual merits hearing. D. 8 at 2-3. At such hearing, Petitioner asserts that the IJ deemed his asylum application abandoned for nonpayment, rejected his fee waiver request for same, and ordered Petitioner removed. Id. at 3. Discussion. This Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context").1. In Forma Pauperis. In light of Petitioner's affidavit of indigency, D. 15, the Court ALLOWS his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 14.2. Merits Hearing. Although Petitioner raises procedural arguments in regard to both hearings, D. 8 at 2-3, because "any claim arising out of the adjudication and execution of a removal order is beyond the scope of this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction," Dambrosio v. McDonald, No. 25-CV-10782-FDS, 2025 WL 1070058, at *2 n.1 (D. Mass. Apr. 9, 2025), reconsideration denied sub nom. D'Ambrosio v. McDonald, 793 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D. Mass. 2025), the Court focuses its analysis on Petitioner's bond hearing.3. Bond Hearing. District courts have jurisdiction to ensure that the IJ applied "the constitutionally requisite burden of proof" at the bond hearing, Timbigamba v. FCI Berlin, Warden, No. 26-cv-281-LM-AJ, 2026 WL 1470320, at *6 (D.N.H. May 26, 2026); see Hernandez-Azuaje v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13224-ADB, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026) (stating that "[d]istrict courts in the First Circuit have reviewed immigration judges' bond determinations for compliance with [the] constitutionally mandated burden of proof"); see also D. 16 at 1-2.The Court agrees with Respondents that it cannot say the IJ's decision was so arbitrary as to violate due process. D. 16 at 3. First, although Petitioner argues that he was deprived of sufficient time to prepare for his bond hearing because, after receiving notice on August 6, 2026 that his bond hearing would occur on August 10, 2026, an unidentified ICE agent informed him that he would only be brought into court on August 11, 2026, D. 8 at 2, without more, the Court cannot say that such confusion amounts to a constitutional deprivation, particularly where the Petitioner raised a similar notice argument during his bond hearing before the IJ. D. 11. Second, while Petitioner's bond hearing was interrupted due to issues with various translators, D. 8 at 2, the Court notes that the IJ secured not one but two replacement interpreters to remedy the circumstances and allowed Petitioner to restart his argument after each interruption, such that the substance of Petitioner's arguments were understood and communicated to the IJ, D. 11. Third, Petitioner challenges that he was found to be a danger based upon his conviction, arguing that his conviction is not yet final because he is appealing same. D. 8 at 2. Petitioner, however, "provides no binding authority showing that the petitioner's criminal conviction cannot, as a matter of law, meet the clear and convincing standard for dangerousness to the community." Makuraza v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-122-JL-AJ, 2026 WL 1068066, at *3 (D.N.H. Apr. 20, 2026). Indeed, an "immigration judge may reasonably decide that a recent history of criminal conduct, even if it has not resulted in a conviction, outweighs other factors that might warrant release on bond," Alsharif v. Donelan, No. 20-cv-30030-PBS, 2020 WL 3232476, at *3 (D. Mass. May 14, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-cv-30030, 2020 WL 3244081 (D. Mass. May 29, 2020), and here, Petitioner was charged and convicted of assault and battery, D. 1-3 at 2-5, a serious offense, see Alsharif, 2020 WL 3232476, at *4; Rodriguez v. Hyde, 834 F. Supp. 3d 163, 166 (D. Mass. 2026) (noting that "based on petitioner's recent conviction" for assault and battery "may well pose a danger to the community"). Further, as explained by the IJ, D. 11, Petitioner's conviction remains final unless and until it is reversed, pending appeal notwithstanding, see Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chan, 465 F. Supp. 3d 18, 29-30 (D. Mass. 2020), aff'd, No. 20-1985, 2022 WL 1315624 (1st Cir. Jan. 26, 2022).4. Medical Care. Petitioner has Type-2 Diabetes and contends that Respondents have failed to provide him with the necessary diet and medication while in detention and that his condition and blood sugar levels have "significantly worsened" as a result. D. 1 ¶¶ 20-24; D. 8 at 3; D. 1-6 at 2-3; D. 11. Respondents assert that Petitioner has been provided with the requisite medical care, D. 16 at 4 (providing that Petitioner "has his blood sugar checked twice a day, is compliant with medications and has not submitted any sick slips recently"), an ongoing obligation of the Respondents so long as Petitioner remains in their custody, see Savino v. Souza, 453 F. Supp. 3d 441, 450 (D. Mass. 2020).5. Appointment of Counsel. In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request for counsel as moot. D. 14.Conclusion. In sum, the Court DENIES the Petition and supplement to same, D. 1; D. 8, Petitioner's emergency motion, D. 12, and Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel, D. 14, and the Court ALLOWS Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis, id. (SEC) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#20

Sep 17, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 17 Petitioner's EMERGENCY MOTION and Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Having reviewed Petitioner's renewed emergency motion, D. 17, and supporting memorandum and attachments, D. 18, such motion fails for the same reasons explained in the Court’s ruling about D. 12 which the Court incorporates here by reference. Petitioner raises for the first time dental neglect and pain, D. 17 at 3, which the Court considered together with the government's recent response that Petitioner "has not required emergent medical send outs for any reason," D. 16 at 4. For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion, D. 17. (SEC) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#21

Sep 17, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER OF DISMISSAL. (SEC) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

Sep 17, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

Sep 17, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief