Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00408

#1

Mar 11, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9416174), filed by Z. L.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E) (Visher, John) Modified text on 3/11/2026 to add payment information. (sms) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#2

Mar 11, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Z. L.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E) (Visher, John) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#3

Mar 11, 2026

BRIEF in Support re 2 Motion for TRO,, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Z. L.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E) (Visher, John) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#4

Mar 12, 2026

ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO; deferring ruling on 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Petitioner's Motion is DENIED insofar as Petitioner seeks a TRO. In his Motion, Petitioner seeks to enjoin transfer outside of the Western District of Pennsylvania. This Court lacks authority to grant that relief as the places of detention for aliens pending removal is left to the discretion of the Attorney General, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1), and Congress has "limited federal district courts' jurisdiction to review decisions or actions made pursuant to the sound discretion of DHS officials[.]" Jane v. Rodriguez, No. 20-CV-5922 (ES), 2020 WL 10140953, at *1 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020); see also Sinclair v. Attorney General of U.S., 198 F. Appx 218, 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006). Additionally, Petitioner's request for immediate release goes beyond the "limited nature of a [T.R.O.]" and instead requests "mandatory, affirmative relief[,]" which may not be afforded via a T.R.O. Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 956 F.3d 156, 16162 (3d Cir. 2020) (finding that where the district court purported to enter an ex parte T.R.O. but directed the release of twenty petitioners, the "relief altered the status quo, exceeding the temporary and limited nature of a [T.R.O.]") (citing Granny Goose Foods Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). Finally, while Petitioner requests an order barring his removal from the country, he has offered the Court no indication that he has a final order of removal, or that his removal is in any way imminent. (ECF No. 3). Therefore, because Petitioner has failed to show that he faces a risk of immediate and irreparable harm in the form of imminent removal absent a T.R.O., the Court denies Petitioners request for such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A) (providing that a T.R.O. may only issue where specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition). While Petitioner's request for a T.R.O. is DENIED, the Court is left with Petitioner's request for a preliminary injunction relative to his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225/1226. This Court RESERVES JUDGMENT on the relief requested via a preliminary injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall respond to Petitioners request for a preliminary injunction on same date that they are required to answer the pending Habeas Petition. The Court will articulate that deadline by way of a separate order. Any response MUST SQUARELY ADDRESS whether this Court's prior holding in Calzado Diaz v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-458, 2025 WL 3628480 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025), requires that relief be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's counsel shall serve this Order upon Respondents, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the Attorney General of the United States, and shall file a certificate of service of the same. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 3/12/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nsk) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#5

Mar 12, 2026

Case Management Order

Mar 12, 2026

Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO

Mar 12, 2026

Judge Stephanie L. Haines added. (cel)

#11

Jun 09, 2026

Order

#12

Jun 09, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)

#14

Jul 13, 2026

Enforce

Jul 14, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#17

Aug 04, 2026

Leave to File

Aug 10, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File

#23

Oct 13, 2026

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Enforce. The Court granted Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered that he be provided an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a). ECF No. 11. He received the ordered hearing. The immigration judge determined that Petitioner failed to establish he is not a flight risk and denied bond. ECF No. 13-2, p. 1. Petitioner now moves to enforce the Court's Order. ECF No. 14. In resolving Petitioner's Motion, the Court begins by observing that 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(e) specifically provides that no court ''may set aside any action or decision under this section regarding the detention of any alien or the revocation or denial of bond or parole.'' This provision divests district courts of the jurisdiction to reexamine the bond decisions of immigration judges. Nevertheless, two (unpublished) decisions of the Third Circuit have held that a district court may examine an alien's bond hearing to determine whether it fell below the minimum standards of due process. See Quinteras v. Warden Pike Cty. Corr. Fac., 784 Fed. Appx. 75 (3d Cir. 2019), and Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cty. Corr. Fac., 2022 WL 574624 (3d Cir. 2022). In this case, there is no question that Petitioner received a bond hearing, as ordered. There is, likewise, no question that the stated reason for denial of bond was the determination that he poses a flight risk. This determination is unreviewable under 8 USC 1226(e). The Court has no jurisdiction to review the substantive determination of the immigration judges and, upon review of the relevant filings in this case, sees no violation of due process. Indeed, the Court finds that Petitioner's Motion ultimately boils down to a disagreement with the IJ's bond decision, a decision that this Court lacks jurisdiction to reexamine. The Court therefore denies Petitioner's Motion to Enforce. In denying Petitioner's Motion, the Court observes that, in Petitioner's Notice of Supplemental Authority at ECF No. 22, he argues for release under recent Third Circuit precedent, and he also lodges arguments concerning prolonged detention. See also ECF No. 14, pp. 24-25. But these arguments are not the proper subject of a Motion to Enforce. See O.G.M. v. Sage, No. 4:26-CV-780, 2026 WL 2455748, at *4 n.54 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2026) (''To the extent that [the] motion [to enforce] may be construed as arguing that his detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged... such an argument does not relate to the underlying judgment in this matter, which was based only on [his] detention under the wrong statutory authority without a bond hearing. Any argument related to prolonged detention therefore is not properly brought in this motion.''). Therefore, to the extent that Petitioner seeks to make his Notice of Supplemental Authority a component of his Motion to Enforce, and to the extent that he seeks release on matters unrelated to the underlying judgment in this matter, those efforts by Petitioner are likewise unavailing and DENIED.. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 10/13/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (al) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

Oct 13, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce