District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13867

#1

Aug 21, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Felipe Candido De Freitas. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Index, # 2 Attachment 1, # 3 Attachment 2, # 4 Attachment 3, # 5 Attachment 4, # 6 Attachment 5, # 7 Attachment 6, # 8 Attachment 7, # 9 Attachment 8, # 10 Attachment 9, # 11 Attachment 10)(LBO) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#2

Aug 21, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (CAM) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#3

Aug 21, 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). (SED) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#4

Aug 21, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. Procedural Order regarding resolution of filing fee. Plaintiff must respond within 21 days. (jm) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#5

Aug 21, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL (SED) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#6

Aug 21, 2026

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 8/21/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

Aug 21, 2026

Copy Mailed

Aug 21, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Aug 24, 2026

Copy re 4 PSSA Order 2 and an IFP form (AO 240) mailed to Felipe Candido De Freitas on 8/24/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

Aug 24, 2026

Copy Mailed

#8

Aug 25, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica McMahon on behalf of ICE/D.H.S Department Homeland Security (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#9

Aug 26, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by ICE/D.H.S Department Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#10

Aug 27, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. After conferring with Judge Talwani and with her consent, this case is TRANSFERRED to Judge Talwani as it is related to a prior habeas petition filed earlier this year by the same petitioner (No. 26-cv-10966-IT). See Local Rule 40.1(g), (j). (FGD) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#11

Aug 27, 2026

Copy re 10 Order Reassigning Case, mailed to Felipe Candido De Freitas on 8/27/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#12

Aug 27, 2026

NOTICE of Reassignment. Judge Indira Talwani added. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin no longer assigned to case. (JKK) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

Aug 27, 2026

Notice of Reassignment

Aug 27, 2026

Copy Mailed

Aug 27, 2026

Order Reassigning Case

#13

Aug 28, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Felipe Candido De Freitas.(FGD) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#14

Aug 28, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 13 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (jm) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

Aug 28, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

#15

Aug 31, 2026

Copy re 14 Electronic Order Mailed to Felipe Candido De Freitas on August 31, 2026. (MAP) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

Aug 31, 2026

Copy Mailed

#16

Sep 10, 2026

Motion - Arguments Against Respondents' Opposition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Felipe Candido De Freitas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7)(MAP) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#17

Sep 10, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention under the Due Process Clause [ 1 ]. Petitioner’s detention unquestionably constitutes a “significant deprivation of liberty.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 27 (1st Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, here Petitioner focuses on the duration of his detention, and does not identify any reason to expect that the outcome of a third bond hearing might be different than that of the first and second one. As Petitioner acknowledges, he already requested a second bond hearing based on the changed circumstances he alleges now [ 16 ], and the Immigration Judge did not find that Petitioner established changed circumstances. See [Doc. No. 9-1]. Moreover, Petitioner’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order of removal is currently pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. [Doc. No. 9-3]. Based on the record, the court does not find that Petitioner’s detention without an additional bond hearing violates his due process rights at this stage. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 343 (1976) (considering the “probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards”). If Petitioner identifies new evidence or a relevant change in circumstances that warrants another bond hearing, he can seek a bond redetermination under the appropriate regulations. See Lemus Tejada v. Moniz, 26-12619, Doc. No. 16 (D. Mass. July 6, 2026) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e)). (MAP) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#18

Sep 10, 2026

Copy re 17 Electronic Order mailed to Felipe Candido De Freitas on September 10, 2026. (MAP) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

Sep 10, 2026

Copy Mailed

Sep 10, 2026

Order

#20

Sep 23, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Sep 23, 2026

Order

#21

Oct 05, 2026

Reconsideration AND Reopen Case