District of Connecticut • 3:25-cv-02122

#1

Dec 19, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACTDC-8441098.), filed by Nathaniel Sterling.(Ahmad, Muneer) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#2

Dec 19, 2025

Emergency MOTION for ENJOINING RESPONDENTS FROM TRANSFERRING PETITIONER MORE THAN 100 MILES FROM THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION Order by Nathaniel Sterling. (Ahmad, Muneer) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#3

Dec 19, 2025

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. A telephonic Status Conference is set for December 19, 2025 at 04:30 PM in a Remote Setting before Judge Kari A. Dooley. Conference Line: +1 203-684-6202; Conference ID: 764798245#. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#4

Dec 19, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by John W Larson on behalf of Pamela J. Bondi, Floyd Cleveland, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem (Larson, John) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#5

Dec 19, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Madelyn Finucane on behalf of Nathaniel Sterling (Finucane, Madelyn) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#6

Dec 19, 2025

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER granting in part 2 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Respondents from Transferring Petitioner More Than 100 Miles from this Court's Jurisdiction. Petitioner has filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his arrest and detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officials on December 19, 2025. See ECF No. 1. Petitioner also seeks an immediate order pursuant to the All Writs Act restraining ICE officials from transferring him to a location more than 100 miles from Connecticut. See ECF No. 2. Upon review of the Petition and the Emergency Motion, and following a hearing held on December 19, 2025, see ECF No. 3, the Court Orders as follows: (1) Pursuant to the Court's authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the Court's jurisdiction and the integrity of these proceedings, the Court hereby restrains ICE from transferring Petitioner to any ICE detention facility beyond 150 miles of the Connecticut border during the pendency of the instant habeas corpus petition. See Aparicio-Deras v. Turek, No. 2:25-CV-726 (GWC) (D. Vt. Sept. 1, 2025), at ECF No. 2; see, e.g., Mahdawi v. Trump, No. 2:25-CV-389, 2025 WL 1099021, at *1 (D. Vt. Apr. 14, 2025) ("In order to preserve this Court's jurisdiction, and pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, it is ordered that the Petitioner... not be removed from the United States or moved out of the territory of the District of Vermont pending further order of this Court."). Indeed, the Court concludes that Petitioner's transfer to an ICE detention facility outside the geographic region imposed herein would create an imminent risk of irreparable injury, insofar as it could prohibit or impair Petitioner's attendance at the Court's habeas hearings, as well as Petitioner's effective consultation with counsel in preparation for and during such hearings. See Aparicio-Deras, at ECF No. 2. Moreover, the Court discerns no meaningful harm, at this juncture, that will result to Respondents from housing Petitioner at a location within the geographic region imposed herein. Nevertheless, the Court's decision herein is without prejudice should circumstances develop or information not known at this nascent stage come to light that would impact this assessment; (2) Respondents, having appeared in this action through the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, shall be served with this Order by operation of the Court's electronic filing system; and (3) Respondents shall answer or respond to the 1 Petition on or before December 31, 2025. Petitioner shall file any reply on or before January 9, 2026. In their briefing, the parties are respectfully requested to address the impact, if any, of the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Ryan v. Ebecke, 102 Conn. 12 (Conn. 1925) on the issues raised in the 1 Petition. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on December 19, 2025. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#7

Dec 19, 2025

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kari A. Dooley: Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/19/2025. 39 minutes(Court Reporter Alicia Cayode Kyles.) (Gould, K) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#11

Dec 19, 2025

Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research: Attorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court. Use of AI without verification of the accuracy of the information it generates like any other shoddy research method from other sources or tools implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the central purpose of which is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus to streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts. Rule 11 applies fully to actions filed by pro se litigants.Therefore, all parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse. See generally Willis v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n et al, No. 3:25-CV-516-BN, 2025 WL 1408897 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2025). Signed by Clerk on 12/19/2025.(Freberg, B) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

Dec 19, 2025

Calendar Entry

Dec 19, 2025

NEW Case Assignment

Dec 19, 2025

Order on Motion for Order

Dec 19, 2025

CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Kari A. Dooley assigned to the case. If the District Judge issues an Order of Referral to a Magistrate Judge for any matter other than settlement, the matter will be referred to Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti. (Sichanh, C)

#8

Dec 22, 2025

Standing Protective Order (Intake)

#9

Dec 22, 2025

Electronic Filing Order

#10

Dec 22, 2025

Notice of Option to Consent to MJ Jurisdiction (intake)

Dec 22, 2025

Notice re: AI-Assisted Research

Dec 22, 2025

Status Conference

#12

Dec 24, 2025

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#13

Dec 26, 2025

Extension of Time

#14

Dec 27, 2025

ORDER granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time. Respondent's response to the Petition is due by January 9, 2026. Petitioner's reply to the response is due by January 20, 2026. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/27/25. (Dooley, Kari) (Entered: 12/27/2025)

Dec 27, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#15

Jan 09, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#16

Jan 13, 2026

ORDER: On January 9, 2026, Respondents filed their response to the 1 Petition, demonstrating, inter alia, that on January 8, 2026, following a bond hearing in immigration court, Petitioner was denied release on bond. See ECF No. 15-6. Accordingly, in his reply brief, Petitioner is respectfully requested to include a discussion as to the extent to which these events impact the justiciability of the claims raised in this petition for habeas corpus, and/or the ability of the Court to afford meaningful relief to Petitioner. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on January 13, 2026. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

#17

Jan 13, 2026

Notice of Appearance

Jan 13, 2026

Order

#18

Jan 15, 2026

Amend/Correct

#19

Jan 20, 2026

Response

#20

Jan 28, 2026

Objection

#21

Feb 04, 2026

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Oral Argument on the 18 Motion to Amend is hereby set for February 13, 2026 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom Two, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Kari A. Dooley. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

Feb 04, 2026

Calendar Entry

#22

Feb 05, 2026

Continue

#23

Feb 06, 2026

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Amend; granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion to Continue. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's 18 Motion to Amend, Respondents' 20 Objection thereto, the cases relied upon by both parties, and Respondents' 22 Motion to Continue the Oral Argument presently scheduled for February 13, 2026. See ECF No. 21. For the reasons that follow, the 18 Motion to Amend is GRANTED, and the 22 Motion to Continue is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Under Rule 15(a)(2), "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "It is within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend." WC Capital Mgmt., LLC v. UBS Sec., LLC, 711 F.3d 322, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "A district court has discretion to deny leave for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party." McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200-01 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Here, Petitioner seeks to add an additional claim supporting the requested habeas relief, arising out of the bond hearing held in his underlying immigration proceedings on January 8, 2026, which Petitioner claims was "constitutionally inadequate." See ECF No. 18. Respondents object to the proposed amendment as futile, and because Petitioner has not availed himself of his appellate remedies in the immigration proceedings. Without addressing these arguments and their implications, in the interest of judicial efficiency, and identifying no undue prejudice to Respondents, the Court, in its discretion, see Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, grants the Motion to Amend. As such, the Court further orders the following: (1) the Oral Argument scheduled for February 13, 2026, see ECF No. 21, is CANCELED; (2) Petitioner shall file the proposed Second Amended Petition ("SAP") on or before February 10, 2026; (3) Respondents shall file their response to the SAP on or before March 2, 2026, addressing only the newly added claim for habeas relief (the others having already been fully briefed); and (4) Petitioner shall file any reply brief on or before March 9, 2026 (and shall therein indicate whether an appeal has been taken from the order denying bond). Oral argument on the SAP shall be held on March 18, 2026 at 10:00 AM. A separate calendar shall enter. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on February 6, 2026. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#24

Feb 06, 2026

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Oral Argument on the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is set for March 18, 2026 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom Two, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Kari A. Dooley. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

Feb 06, 2026

Order on Motion to Amend/Correct AND Order on Motion to Continue

Feb 06, 2026

Calendar Entry

#25

Feb 10, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#26

Feb 13, 2026

Continue

#27

Feb 13, 2026

ORDER granting in part 26 Motion to Reschedule. On consent, Petitioner seeks to reschedule Oral Argument on the 25 Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to either March 11, 2026 or March 12, 2026. See ECF No. 26. The Court is unavailable on those dates. As such, and consistent with Petitioner's alternate proposal, see id., Oral Argument shall remain scheduled for March 18, 2026. See ECF No. 23. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on February 13, 2026. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Order on Motion to Continue

#28

Feb 25, 2026

Appear

#29

Feb 25, 2026

Appear

#30

Mar 02, 2026

Response

#31

Mar 03, 2026

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Appear; granting 29 Motion to Appear. The Law Student Interns identified by Petitioner may appear in this case, under supervision. However, it is unclear to the Court whether and the extent to which Petitioner anticipates all six Law Student Interns will participate in the Oral Argument scheduled in this matter for March 18, 2026. See ECF No. 24. The Court will likely make inquiry on this issue at the start of the hearing. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on March 3, 2026. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

Mar 03, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear AND Order on Motion to Appear

#32

Mar 09, 2026

Response

#33

Mar 09, 2026

Seal

#34

Mar 09, 2026

Sealed Motion

#35

Mar 10, 2026

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Seal; granting 34 Sealed Motion. The Court finds a clear and compelling reason for the sealing insofar as the filing contains privileged information and the Petitioner's personal medical information. The Court further finds that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to protect this privacy interest, which outweighs the public's interest in access to this material. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on March 10, 2026. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

Mar 10, 2026

Order on Motion to Seal AND Order on Sealed Motion

#36

Mar 19, 2026

Miscellaneous Hearing

#37

Mar 19, 2026

Seal

#38

Mar 19, 2026

Sealed Motion

#39

Apr 22, 2026

Writ

#40

Apr 22, 2026

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. A telephonic Hearing re: the 39 Emergency MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum is hereby set for April 27, 2026 at 10:00 AM in a Remote Setting before Judge Kari A. Dooley. Conference Line: +1 203-684-6202; Conference ID: 374166506#. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

Apr 22, 2026

Calendar Entry - Motion Hearing

#41

Apr 27, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kari A. Dooley: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/27/2026. 9 minutes. (Court Reporter Tracy Gow.) (Spears, A.) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

Status Conference

#42

May 04, 2026

Notice (Other)

#43

May 05, 2026

ORDER denying as moot 39 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, for the reasons set forth in Respondents' 42 Notice. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on May 5, 2026. (Spears, A.) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

May 05, 2026

Order on Motion for Writ

#44

May 26, 2026

Notice (Other)

#45

May 28, 2026

ORDER re: 44 Notice of Supplemental Authority. On May 26, 2026, Petitioner submitted a Notice of Supplemental Authority, alerting the Court to a decision issued in the Central District of California on May 20, 2026, granting, inter alia, preliminary injunctive relief to plaintiffs in a class action suit challenging ICE's so-called "2025 Guidance" as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). See ECF No. 44 (citing Immigr. Ctr. For Women and Children, et al. v. Noem, et al., No. 25-CV-9848 (AB), ECF No. 57 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2026)). There, the district court issued a nationwide stay of ICE's 2025 Guidance as to the named plaintiffs, as well as the members of three certified classes. One such class, the "Pending Petition Class," appears to include the instant Petitioner, Nathaniel Sterling. Petitioner summarily asserts that the stay of ICE's 2025 Guidance precludes Respondents from detaining Petitioner in light of his pending U visa application. See ECF No 44. Yet, Petitioner offers no meaningful analysis as to why that may be the case, and blithely asks this Court to expedite its ruling on the Second Amended Petition ("SAP"), by which Petitioner shall be released from ICE detention. See id. On the present record, the Court simply cannot assess the impact of the aforementioned stay of the 2025 Guidance on the SAP, which did not raise any claim under the APA or involve the 2025 Guidance at all. Indeed, the SAP does not cite to Petitioner's pending U visa application as a basis for habeas corpus relief. To the extent Petitioner now seeks to amend the SAP to include such a claim, a Notice of Supplemental Authority is not the appropriate mechanism for doing so. And it is not for this Court to take on the role of enforcing the orders of a sister district simply because a (likely) impacted habeas corpus petition is pending here. The court in the Central District of California is more than capable of overseeing ICE compliance with the stay order. If Respondents, who are subject to the stay order, determine that Petitioner's release is mandated thereby, they will presumably effectuate his release forthwith. Notwithstanding, the Court is of the view that the issue, and the nationwide stay of the 2025 Guidance, requires the Court's attention. However, the Court has inadequate information as to whether Petitioner was arrested and detained on December 19, 2025 in accordance with the 2025 Guidance, or some other authority. Moreover, it is unknown whether USCIS had previously determined that Petitioner's U visa application was "bona fide" or otherwise presented a "prima facie" case for approval, or whether in the first instance ICE sought an expedited "prima facie" adjudication and/or "bona fide" determination regarding Petitioner's U visa application in advance of his arrest and detention (as contemplated under the now un-rescinded 2021 Directive). In this regard, it is unknown on the present record whether USCIS made any discretionary determinations which would afford Petitioner relief, e.g., release from detention and/or an administrative stay of his removal proceedings. None of these factual issues were the subject of the parties' briefing on the SAP or otherwise addressed in the record evidence. Accordingly, on or before June 8, 2026, Petitioner and Respondents shall file supplemental briefing, and evidence as may be appropriate, regarding the impact, if any, of the stay of the 2025 Guidance and the decision out of the Central District of California on the pending SAP. The Court further recognizes that there may be additional issues implicated by the stay order, not referenced herein, but as time appears to be of the essence, the Court errs on the side of expediency. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on May 28, 2026. (AS) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

May 28, 2026

Order