Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01651

#1

Aug 07, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Jose Gregorio Medina Castillo. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Envelope)(ARS) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#2

Aug 07, 2026

MOTION for Expedited Consideration of Petition by Jose Gregorio Medina Castillo.(ARS) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#3

Aug 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jose Gregorio Medina Castillo.So that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel, the respondents are enjoined from transferring the petitioner to any district outside the Western District of New York. See Perez y Perez v. Noem, 2025 WL 1908284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (collecting cases). In Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026), the Second Circuit held that noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are subject to detention under section 1226. And in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, 816 F. Supp. 3d 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court held that detention of noncitizens who have remained in the country following expiration of parole is under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not section 1225. Additionally, this Court held in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), "that constitutional due process requires the government to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is either a danger to the community or a flight risk even at an initial bond hearing under section 1226(a)." Id. at 598. It appears that the holdings of Barbosa da Cunha, Alvarez Ortiz and/or Cabrera Martinez may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 8/14/2026, why, in light of those decisions, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. The petitioner also argues that he was arrested without a warrant and therefore is entitled to immediate release. In Last Name Unknown v. Ball, 2026 WL 2096666, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 21, 2026), this Court held that a petitioner whose detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was entitled to immediate release when a warrant had not been obtained for his arrest. Accordingly, the respondents also shall SHOW CAUSE on or before 8/14/2026 why the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release under this Court's decision in Last Name Unknown, including providing a copy of any warrant that the respondents say was issued and a declaration attesting to when that warrant was issued.The petitioner's motion to expedite, Docket Item 2, is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/7/2026. (DDC)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 08/07/2026)

Aug 07, 2026

Clerk mailed to petitioner the Prisoner Pro Se Packet, consisting of Privacy Notice, Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge, and Civil Case Timeline. (ARS)

Aug 07, 2026

Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. (ARS)

Aug 07, 2026

Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number 100010186 (ARS)