Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01618

#1

Aug 19, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number 200020648), filed by BREY MOISES HERNANDEZ GUTIERREZ. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit List, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Receipt, # 12 Envelope) (ljs) (Entered: 08/19/2026)

#2

Aug 19, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by BREY MOISES HERNANDEZ GUTIERREZ. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ljs) (Entered: 08/19/2026)

Aug 19, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (ljs)

#3

Aug 20, 2026

ORDER DENYING 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. In the 2 Motion, pro se Petitioner seeks, inter alia, his immediate release from detention and an order enjoining Respondents from transferring Petitioner outside of the Western District of Pennsylvania. Congress has vested the Secretary of Homeland Security and his/her delegates, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with the authority to detain aliens pending a decision on their removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(2), 1226(a), (c)(1). And Congress has vested the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the discretion to set the place of detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1); Sinclair v. Att'y Gen., 198 F. App'x 218, 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Within DHS' discretion is the authority to transfer aliens from one detention center to another. Calla-Collado v. Att'y Gen., 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011). Reading § 1231(g)(1) together with Congress' limitations in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) on federal district courts' jurisdiction to review discretionary actions by DHS, federal district courts have concluded that they lack jurisdiction to review DHS' decisions under § 1231. See, e.g., Jane v. Rodriguez, No. 20-5922, 2020 WL 10140953, *1-2 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020) (citing cases). Consistent with this authority, this Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to enjoin Petitioner's transfer. And, regarding Petitioner's request for immediate release from custody, such request for affirmative relief goes beyond the limited, temporary nature of a TRO and requires giving Respondents notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 956 F.3d 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2020). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/20/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jcs) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#4

Aug 20, 2026

Case Management Order

Aug 20, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#5

Aug 21, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/21/2026. (drc) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#6

Aug 21, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Maureen Sheehan-Balchon on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DAVID J. VENTURELLA, WARDEN/FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR. (Sheehan-Balchon, Maureen) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#7

Aug 21, 2026

NOTICE of Substitution of Attorney Appearance by Nathaniel G. Ecker on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DAVID J. VENTURELLA, WARDEN/FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR. Attorney Maureen Sheehan-Balchon terminated. (Ecker, Nathaniel) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#8

Aug 24, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER: Response to Petition due 9/21/2026; Reply due 9/29/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/24/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

Aug 24, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#9

Sep 21, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by TODD BLANCHE, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DAVID J. VENTURELLA, WARDEN/FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Ecker, Nathaniel) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

#10

Sep 22, 2026

ORDER DENYING 1 Second Petition for Habeas Corpus. Petitioner, a noncitizen detained at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, has been in ICE custody since March 2026. ECF No. 1. In a previous petition, Hernandez v. Oddo, No. 26-cv-1207-CCW (W.D. Pa. 2026) (Wiegand, J.) ("Hernandez I"), Petitioner argued, inter alia, that he was subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge (IJ). The Court granted in part Petitioner's first petition on 7/1/2026, because it concluded that Petitioner was subject to discretionary detention pursuant to § 1226(a) and not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) and therefore that he was entitled to a bond hearing. See Hernandez I, ECF No. 6. Petitioner's bond hearing was held on 7/7/2026, and the immigration judge denied bond based on a finding of flight risk. Hernandez I, ECF No. 9. Now, in a second 1 Petition, Petitioner requests immediate release from custody, arguing that the bond hearing he received was inadequate and that his ongoing detention has become unreasonably prolonged in violation of his due process rights. ECF No. 1 at 8-11. First, regarding Petitioner's challenge to the adequacy of the 7/7/2026 bond hearing, federal courts "lack jurisdiction to review any discretionary determinations underlying the IJ's bond decision," and may only "review whether the bond hearing was fundamentally unfair" such that it violates the detainee's due process rights. Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022); see also Quinteros v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 784 F. App'x 75, 78 (3d Cir. 2019). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has advised that a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is "fundamentally fair," and thus satisfies due process, if three essential elements are present: (1) factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to the detainee; (2) the detainee is allowed to make arguments on his or her behalf; and (3) the IJ makes an individualized determination of the detainee's interests. Ghanem, 2022 WL 574624 at *2; see also Quinteros, 784 F. App'x at 78. Accordingly, this Court's review of the bond hearing is limited to considering whether the hearing was fundamentally fair under Ghanem. Petitioner has not provided the Court with a transcript or recording of the 7/7/2026 hearing. See ECF No. 1. Thus, the Court lacks any basis to conclude that the hearing lacked the three essential elements of a "fundamentally" fair bond hearing under Ghanem. Accordingly, Petitioner, who bears the burden of demonstrating he is entitled to relief, has failed to show that the 7/7/2026 bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate. Next, regarding Petitioner's challenge to the length of his detention, the Court concludes that Petitioner's detention has not become unreasonably prolonged. When considering a due process challenge to the length of detention of a noncitizen who has received a bond hearing, the Court considers the length of detention since the time of the noncitizen's most recent bond hearing. See Ndungu v. Doll, No. 4:20-CV-2268, 2021 WL 1916700, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2021). Here, Petitioner received a bond hearing less than three months ago. See Hernandez I, ECF No. 9. Three months of post-bond hearing detention is not unreasonably prolonged and does not violate Petitioner's due process rights. See Borbot v. Warden of Hudson Cty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 280 (detention of approximately eighteen months following bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) does not violate due process); Flores-Lopez v. Lowe, No. 1:21-CV-1839, 2021 WL 6134453, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021) (Conner, J.) (detention of approximately nineteen months following bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) does not violate due process.); Ndungu 2021 WL 1916700, at *5 (Because Petitioner received a bond hearing approximately one month ago, he has received all the process he is due, and he is not entitled to relief based on the length of his detention.). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 1 Second Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/22/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

#11

Sep 22, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT entered consistent with the above order (ECF No. 10). Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/22/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

Sep 22, 2026

Judgment

Sep 22, 2026

Order