District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13899

#1

Dec 18, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11428982 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Carlos Hernan Antunez Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Pomerleau, Todd) Modified on 12/18/2025 (MC). (Entered: 12/18/2025)

#2

Dec 18, 2025

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. Emergency Order Concerning Stay of Transfer or Removal.(MC) (Entered: 12/18/2025)

#3

Dec 19, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns 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 M. Page Kelley. (CM) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#4

Dec 19, 2025

Order

#5

Dec 19, 2025

Copy re 1 Complaint Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order mailed to Patricia Hyde, Todd M Lyons, Kristi L. Noem, Joseph D. McDonald, Michael Krol, Pamela Bondi and Donald J. Trump on 12/19/2025. (JAM) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#6

Dec 19, 2025

Notice of Appearance

Dec 19, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

Dec 19, 2025

Copy Mailed

#7

Dec 23, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#8

Dec 23, 2025

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#9

Dec 24, 2025

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 8 the Government's Motion for Extension of Time to up to and including January 5, 2026, to file a response to the Petition. The current deadline is December 29, 2025. (MZ) (Entered: 12/24/2025)

Dec 24, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#10

Jan 05, 2026

Extension of Time

#11

Jan 05, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time. Respondents' response is due January 7, 2026. (RGS, law3) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

Jan 05, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#12

Jan 07, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#13

Jan 08, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Government purports to detain petitioner -- the subject of a final order of dismissal more than ninety days old -- pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court read an implicit limitation into § 1231(a)(6) that any post-removal period of detention may not exceed the "period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States." Id. at 689. Although a detention of up to six months is presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas, Zadvydas does not give the government free reign to confine aliens. Id. at 701. Detention is only permissible "until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Id.Petitioner is ordered to show cause by January 19, 2026, why there is no significant likelihood he will be removed from the country in the reasonably foreseeable future, such that his detention is unlawful under Zadvydas.(RGS, law3) (Entered: 01/08/2026)

Jan 08, 2026

Order

#14

Jan 19, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#15

Jan 20, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 14 Response to Order to Show Cause.The court agrees with petitioner that his removal to Mexico is far from a foregone conclusion. It seemingly hinges on several hurdles being cleared: (1) that the Government obtain an amendment to petitioner's existing order of removal that lists Mexico as a third country to which he may be removed (an evidentiary hearing may be required to acquire any such amendment); and (2) that petitioner fails to establish he has any credible fear of persecution in Mexico. The problem is this: To satisfy Zadvydas, it not enough to show that removal may not occur within the reasonably foreseeable future. Petitioner must instead show that there is no significant likelihood he will be removed from the country in the reasonably foreseeable future. He has not met this high burden based on the record currently before the court. That the court does not find relief warranted at this juncture does not, however, prevent petitioner from moving for relief under Zadvydas in the future. If his detention should continue without an end in sight for several more months, or if he establishes a credible fear of persecution in Mexico such that there is no longer a significant likelihood of his removal in the near future, the change in circumstances may justify the filing of a new petition for habeas relief.(RGS, law3) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#16

Jan 20, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (JAM) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

Jan 20, 2026

Order

#17

Feb 18, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply