District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13711

#1

Aug 12, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28:2254 Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11954509 Fee Status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Celia Pereira dos Santos. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Romeiro, Fernanda) Modified on 8/12/2026 to remove duplicate docket text (JKK). (Entered: 08/12/2026)

#2

Aug 12, 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 Donald L. Cabell. (MBM) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

#3

Aug 12, 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: 08/12/2026)

#4

Aug 12, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (EZG) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

Aug 12, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Aug 17, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Aug 18, 2026

Vacate

#7

Aug 18, 2026

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

#8

Aug 18, 2026

Response to Motion

#9

Aug 18, 2026

Amend

#10

Aug 21, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 6 MOTION to Vacate 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition. In light of the pendency of Petitioner's motion to amend the Petition, D. 9, the Court DENIES the government's motion to vacate the stay order, D. 6, without prejudice to renew after the Court has resolved the motion to file the amended Petition. (SEC) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#11

Aug 21, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court gives the government until August 28, 2026 to respond to Petitioner's motion to amend the Petition. (SEC) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#12

Aug 21, 2026

NOTICE by Todd Blanche, Patricia H Hyde, Markwayne Mullin, David Wesling re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition Notice of Intent to Transfer Petitioner (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#13

Aug 21, 2026

Objection to 12 Notice (Other) by Celia Pereira dos Santos . (Romeiro, Fernanda) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

Aug 21, 2026

Order on Motion to Vacate

Aug 21, 2026

Order

#14

Aug 24, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having considered the government's notice of intent to move Petitioner to another ICE facility, D. 12, and Petitioner's objection to same, D. 13, the Court denies the objection, See, e.g., De Brito Fialho v. Baptiste, et al., No. 26-cv-10950-DJC, D. 8 (D. Mass. Mar. 9, 2026). The Court notes that it retains jurisdiction over the Petition and the Court's earlier stay order, D. 4, otherwise remains in place. (SEC) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

Aug 24, 2026

Order

#15

Aug 27, 2026

Response to Motion

#16

Sep 02, 2026

Expedite

#17

Oct 05, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 9 First MOTION to Amend 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Having considered the amended petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Celia Pereira dos Santos ("Petitioner"), D. 9-1, and Respondents' opposition to the same, D. 15, the Court DENIES the Petition.Background. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Brazil who entered the United States without admission in 2001. D. 9-1 ¶¶ 2, 20. On September 22, 2004, an immigration court in San Antonio, Texas issued an order of removal against Petitioner in absentia. Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 21. Petitioner maintains that she did not know about her hearing before the immigration court or that an order of removal had been entered against her. Id. Petitioner has moved to reopen her removal proceedings with the immigration court since filing her first, initial petition with this Court. D. 9-1 ¶ 8; D. 9-2 at 6. In or about early August 2026, see D. 1, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers encountered, arrested and detained Petitioner in Massachusetts. See D. 9-1 ¶ 20; D. 15 at 1. Respondents assert that Petitioner's current detention is lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) due to her final order of removal and because she is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182, based on her entry into the United States without inspection. D. 15 at 7; D. 7 at 3-5. Petitioner contests the validity of her 2004 removal order, specifically that it failed to provide her with notice of her removal hearing, D. 9-1 ¶¶ 38-59, and contends that her continued detention violates the Due Process Clause, id. ¶¶ 60-76.Discussion. The detention and removal of noncitizens with final orders of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Section 1231 envisions both mandatory, § 1231(a)(2)(A), and discretionary detention limited "to a period reasonably necessary to bring about [a noncitizen's] removal from the United States." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001) (discussing § 1231(a)(6)). There is no dispute that Petitioner has been issued a final order of removal and the 90-day removal period for mandatory detention has long since passed. See D. 9-1 ¶ 3.Petitioner does not dispute Respondents' basis for her detention under § 1231(a)(6), or otherwise allege a violation of § 1231, and acknowledges that this Court lacks authority to review her removal order. D. 9-1 ¶¶ 55, 56, 59, 73; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9) (channeling judicial review of orders of removal to courts of appeals and removing jurisdiction to consider the same in habeas proceedings); Gicharu v. Carr, 983 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2020) (explaining that a request to compel rescission of a removal order fell within the scope of § 1252(b)(9)). Even so, a noncitizen's detention under § 1231(a)(6) cannot be prolonged. Thai v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 57, 60 (D. Mass. 2025) (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690). "Some period of detention prior to deportation is constitutionally valid," and a noncitizen's "detention presumptively comports with due process if it does not exceed six months." Id. (first citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 511 (2003); and then citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). It appears that Petitioner has been detained for less than six months, which is presumptively constitutional. See id. at 61; Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.Accordingly, this Court concludes that Petitioner has not met her burden of establishing that her detention pursuant to her final order of removal and § 1231(a)(6) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See D. 9-1 ¶ 76.For the forgoing reasons, the Petition, D. 9-1, is DENIED. (SEC) (Entered: 10/05/2026)

#18

Oct 05, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 16 Motion to Expedite. In light of the ruling today on the Petition, the motion to expedite a ruling on same is DENIED as moot. (SEC) (Entered: 10/05/2026)

#19

Oct 05, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Oct 05, 2026

Order on Motion to Amend

Oct 05, 2026

Order on Motion to Expedite