District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13743

#1

Aug 13, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11958930 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Cleverson Ribeiro Correia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Category Form)(Kalil, Clarissa) Modified on 8/13/2026 to remove duplicate docket text (CEH). (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#2

Aug 13, 2026

First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Cleverson Ribeiro Correia. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#3

Aug 13, 2026

Proposed Summonses filed by Cleverson Ribeiro Correia as to Todd Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, David Venturella, David Wesling. (Kalil, Clarissa) Docket text Modified on 8/13/2026 (CAM). (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#4

Aug 13, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Allison D. Burroughs 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. (MAC) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#5

Aug 13, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than August 27, 2026.(CAM) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#6

Aug 13, 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). (CAM) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#7

Aug 13, 2026

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), emailed to Duty AUSA Mundele and mailed to Respondents on 8/13/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

Aug 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Aug 13, 2026

Copy Mailed

#8

Aug 14, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On August 13, 2026, Petitioner Cleverson Ribeiro Correia, who is currently detained at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts, filed a habeas corpus petition, [ECF No. 1 ], and motion for temporary restraining order, [ECF No. 2 ]. Petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Ribeiro Correia v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-00585 (D.N.H. Aug. 13, 2026). On July 22, that court ordered that Petitioner receive a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See id., Dkt. No. 8 (July 22, 2026). Petitioner received a bond hearing on July 30, 2026, [ECF No. 1 ¶ 2], after which the New Hampshire court ordered him to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed on the basis that Petitioner had received his requested relief, Ribiero Correia, No. 26-cv-00585, Dkt No. 12 (D.N.H. Aug. 5, 2026). Petitioner did not file anything further, and that action was dismissed. Id. Dkt. No. 13 (Aug. 13, 2026).Petitioner now seeks release from custody or a new bond hearing from this Court, on the basis that at his bond hearing, the immigration judge concluded that Petitioner posed a flight risk that could not be mitigated by bond or other conditions of release, which Petitioner argues was unsupported by the evidence in the record. See generally [ECF No. 1 ]. Without a complete record of Petitioner’s bond hearing, the Court cannot predict that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits, and moreover, given the exceedingly narrow scope of judicial review of bond hearings, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that Petitioner will ultimately be able to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Further, it appears that Petitioner’s counsel did not attempt to give notice of this motion to counsel for Respondents. See [ECF No. 2 at 11]. The Court will not proceed on the motion ex parte, and lacks the record necessary to grant the Petitioner the relief he seeks at this stage. The motion, [ECF No. 2 ], is DENIED with leave to renew as a motion for preliminary injunction, supported by a complete record of Petitioner’s bond hearing, with notice to counsel for Respondents. (CAM) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

Aug 14, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#9

Aug 21, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Sauter on behalf of Todd Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, David Venturella, David Wesling (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#10

Aug 27, 2026

Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Cleverson Ribeiro Correia. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit List)(Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#11

Aug 27, 2026

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING by Cleverson Ribeiro Correia re 10 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#12

Aug 27, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), and Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Todd Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, David Venturella, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - IJ Order, # 2 Exhibit B - DAR Bond Hearing (Manually Filed), # 3 Exhibit C - I-213, # 4 Exhibit D - NTA, # 5 Exhibit E - Petitioner Bond Evidence, # 6 Exhibit F - Removal Order, # 7 Exhibit G - Order from D.N.H.)(Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#13

Aug 27, 2026

First REPLY to Response to 10 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Cleverson Ribeiro Correia. (Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#14

Aug 31, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Cleverson Ribeiro Correia, who is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), received a bond hearing on July 30, 2026, after which the immigration judge (“IJ”) issued a written bond decision on July 31, 2026. [ECF No. 1 ¶ 2]. The IJ’s written decision noted that Petitioner had “multiple letters of community... support, a United States citizen child, and a fixed address,” as well as a sponsor, though the sponsor did not “appear[] to know” Petitioner well. [ECF No. 12-1 at 3]. The IJ also noted that Petitioner failed to appear for an asylum interview in 2025 and that he did not “ke[ep] his address updated with immigration enforcement officials.” [Id. at 4]. On balance, the IJ concluded that “[Petitioner] is a flight risk, and there is not an amount of bond or conditions that will ameliorate that risk,” and ordered Petitioner’s continued detention. [Id.].Petitioner now challenges the IJ’s bond determination on the basis that “the evidence identified by the [IJ] can[not] legally sustain the... determination that no amount of bond and no reasonable combination of conditions could secure Petitioner’s future appearance.” [ECF No. 1 ¶ 4]; see also [id. ¶¶ 34–47]. Though the Court has jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to bond hearings before immigration judges, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 33–34 (1st Cir. 2021), judicial review in this context is extraordinarily limited. The Court may ensure that the burden of proof was correctly allocated, id. at 41, and may set aside an IJ’s decision that is “so arbitrary that it... offend[s] fundamental tenets of due process,” Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 144 (D. Mass. 2019) (quoting Pratt v. Doll, No. 17-cv-01020, 2019 WL 722578, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2019)), but it may not second-guess “the [IJ]’s weighing of... evidence and exercise of discretion,” id. While a total failure to consider alternatives to detention might offend due process, see Costa v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-13469, 2026 WL 371198, at *3–4 (D. Mass. Feb. 10, 2026), no such failure occurred here. The IJ’s written decision expressly discussed, and ruled out, the possibility that some “amount of bond or conditions” could “ameliorate th[e] [flight] risk” posed by Petitioner. [ECF No. 12-1 at 4]. Upon review of the parties’ evidence, including the recordings of Petitioner’s bond hearing, [ECF No. 11 ], the Court—though it might have reached a different conclusion if it weighed the evidence de novo—cannot conclude that the IJ’s decision was so severely lacking in evidentiary support that it violated due process.For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s petition, [ECF No. 1 ], is DENIED, and Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order, [ECF No. 10 ], is DENIED AS MOOT because the Court has resolved this case on the merits. (CAM) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#15

Aug 31, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (CAM) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

Aug 31, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO