District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14144

#1

Sep 09, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-12020161 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Erick Ramirez Grijalva. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Nader, Eliana) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#2

Sep 10, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Patti B. Saris 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (MAC) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#3

Sep 10, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. SERVICE ORDER re 2241 Petition. Order entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243 governing Section 2241 cases for service on respondents. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than September 15, 2026. (LP) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#4

Sep 10, 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). (LP) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#5

Sep 10, 2026

Copy re 3 2241 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) mailed to Respondents on 9/10/2026 and courtesy copy emailed to DUTY AUSA. (CGK) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

Sep 10, 2026

Copy Mailed

Sep 10, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Sep 11, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin Tolkoff on behalf of Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen, David Wesling (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#7

Sep 13, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen. (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/13/2026)

#8

Sep 14, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) filed by Erick Ramirez Grijalva. Petitioner Erick Ramirez Grijalva ("Petitioner") has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his immigration detention without a bond hearing. The government concedes that based on the First Circuit's recent decision in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, "Petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and is entitled to a bond hearing should he request one." Dkt. 7 at 1; see Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, __ F.4th __, __ (1st Cir. 2026) [2026 WL 2352042, at *1, *11] (holding that "noncitizens... who are present in the United States without admission are not subject to [8 U.S.C. ]§ 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory detention provision, but rather, are governed by § 1226" and that "the district court was right to order the government to release [the petitioner] or provide him with a bond hearing"). Given this concession and pursuant to the First Circuit's decision in Guerrero Orellana, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).To the extent the government argues that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by first asking the immigration court for a bond hearing, the Court will not deny the petition on the basis of exhaustion. At an August 19, 2026, status conference in Guerrero Orellana, the government represented that while immigration judges should begin to provide bond hearings to noncitizens covered by the First Circuit's decision without requiring a habeas order, the relevant agencies remain in the process of implementing that decision. The government also took the position that the Court should not alter its class action notice during this transition period. The Court has scheduled another status conference in Guerrero Orellana for mid-September to iron out these wrinkles. See Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS (D. Mass. Aug. 19, 2026), Dkt. 197. At least until then, the Court will not require noncitizens who are entitled to a bond hearing under the First Circuit's decision to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition. See Brito v. Garland, 22 F.4th 240, 255 (1st Cir. 2021) (explaining that common-law exhaustion "cedes discretion to a [federal] court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction" and that "courts have... latitude in dealing with exhaustion questions" in the context of common-law exhaustion (first alteration in original) (first quoting Anversa v. Partners Healthcare Sys., Inc., 835 F.3d 167, 174 (1st Cir. 2016); and then quoting Portela-Gonzalez v. Sec'y of the Navy, 109 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 1997))). Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the habeas petition (Dkt. 1 ) and ORDERS that the government release Petitioner unless he is provided with a bond hearing that complies with the standards outlined in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021), within seven business days of the date of this order. No later than fourteen days from the date of this order, the government shall file a status report confirming that Petitioner has received a bond hearing (or has been released in lieu of a bond hearing) and stating the outcome of the bond hearing. (BEL) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#9

Sep 14, 2026

SET DEADLINES as to: STATUS REPORT due by 9/28/2026. (BEL) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

Sep 14, 2026

Order