District of New Jersey • 1:26-cv-11858

#1

Sep 11, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17929195.), filed by A.J.P.S.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(MARTINEZ, MICHAEL) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#2

Sep 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER. Respondents are hereby enjoined from transferring Petitioner from New Jersey pending further Order of the Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 9/11/2026. (ijf) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

Sep 11, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

Sep 11, 2026

Judge Christine P. O'Hearn added. (ijf)

Sep 11, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

#3

Sep 12, 2026

TEXT ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in which Petitioner alleges that they are being unlawfully detained without a bond hearing and raises concerns regarding their medical condition and access to counsel. If Petitioner was initially detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), their detention is unlawful under Buele Morocho v. Warden Phila. FDC, No. 26-1150, 2026 WL 2546223 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), and Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody under the same conditions that existed before their current detention, return all property to them, and promptly file a letter on the docket so confirming. If not released, within three (3) calendar days of this Order, Respondents shall file a letter on the docket addressing whether Petitioner: (1) has a criminal history warranting mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); (2) is subject to a final order of removal; or (3) was initially detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and afforded a bond hearing. Within that same period, Respondents shall ensure that Petitioner is afforded in-person access to counsel, address the medical concerns raised in the Petition, and advise the Court of the steps taken as to both. Respondents are further reminded that the Court will not accept a "post hoc justification[] for detention." Arias Gudino v. Lowe, 785 F. Supp. 3d 27, 46 n.8 (M.D. Pa. 2025); cf. Marshall v. Lansing, 839 F.2d 933, 943-44 (3d Cir. 1988) ("A court must review the agency's actual on-the-record reasoning process... not a post hoc rationalization, or agency counsel's in-court reasoning."). Accordingly, if Respondents contend that § 1226(a) supplied the authority for Petitioner's detention from the outset, they must provide competent proof establishing that fact. So Ordered by Judge Christine P. O'Hearn on 9/12/2026. (jml, ) (Entered: 09/12/2026)

Sep 12, 2026

Text Order

#4

Sep 14, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by MATTHEW ANTHONY JOHNSON on behalf of A.J.P.S. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(JOHNSON, MATTHEW) (Entered: 09/14/2026)