Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01673

#1

Aug 10, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Pierre Wilfrid Saint Fleur. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Envelope, # 3 Memorandum in Support)(MMG) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#2

Aug 10, 2026

EMERGENCY MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and to Prevent Transfer Pending Final Disposition by Pierre Wilfrid Saint Fleur.(MMG) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

Aug 10, 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. Clerk's Office mailed to Petitioner a Pro Se Packet consisting of privacy notice, consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, and civil case timeline.(MMG)

Aug 10, 2026

Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number 100010206 (MMG)

#3

Aug 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Pierre Wilfrid Saint Fleur.So that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings, the motion to expedite, Docket Item 2, is GRANTED IN PART, and 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 8/18/2026, 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. Additionally, 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. And in Loaeza v. Bausch, 2026 WL 2150155 (W.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026)with which this Court agreesJudge Vacca explained that "[w]ithout a valid [Notice to Appear] in place, removal proceedings are not pending, and [the r]espondents have no authority to make an arrest or effectuate detention." Id. at *1-2. Accordingly, the respondents also shall SHOW CAUSE on or before 8/18/2026 why the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release under Last Name Unknown and/or Loaeza, including providing a copy of any warrant or Notice to Appear that the respondents say was issued. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/11/2026. (DDC)This was mailed to: the petitioner. Modified on 8/11/2026 to address the petitioner's motion to expedite. (DDC) (Entered: 08/11/2026)