District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11263

#1

Mar 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11610364 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Segundo Rodrigo Morocho Santos. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet civil cover sheet, # 2 Category Form category form)(McGee, Molly) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#2

Mar 16, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (CM) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#3

Mar 16, 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). (MAC) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#4

Mar 16, 2026

District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL entered. (MAC) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Mar 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 19, 2026

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

#7

Apr 02, 2026

Memorandum & Order

#8

Apr 14, 2026

Status Report

#9

Apr 14, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#10

Apr 15, 2026

District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Government to respond to motion by 4/24/26.(MMM) (Entered: 04/15/2026)

Apr 15, 2026

Order

#11

Apr 24, 2026

Response to Motion

#12

May 12, 2026

Affidavit

#13

Sep 10, 2026

District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: Petitioner's motion to enforce judgment (D. 9 ) remains pending before the Court. On or before September 21, 2026, petitioner shall file a status report concerning (1) his current detention status and (2) the status of his BIA appeal challenging his bond hearing. On or before September 21, 2026, respondents shall supplement their response to the motion by providing (1) a copy of the IJ's bond decision and (2) a copy of the digital audio record of the bond hearing. (MAC) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

Sep 10, 2026

Order

#14

Sep 21, 2026

Status Report

#15

Sep 21, 2026

Status Report

#16

Oct 08, 2026

Status Report

#17

Nov 04, 2026

District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On April 2, 2026, the Court granted Segundo Rodrigo Morocho Santos’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered respondents to either release petitioner or provide him with a bond hearing no later than April 7, 2026. (Dkt. No. 7). At the April 6 bond hearing, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Luciana Dubuc found that petitioner was “a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence” and denied him bond. (See Dkt. No. 14 (acknowledging manual submission of bond order)). This finding was based solely on Morocho Santos’s November 21, 2026 arrest for assault and battery on a family/household member and witness intimidation—charges that had been dismissed on February 19, 2026. (Dkt. No. 11-1; Dkt. No. 12-2; see Dkt. No. 14 (acknowledging manual submission of bond hearing recording)). Now, Morocho Santos challenges the constitutional adequacy of his bond hearing, which he contends failed to comply with the Court’s order granting his habeas petition, and seeks a new bond hearing. (Dkt. No. 9). This Court has jurisdiction to consider this constitutional challenge and ensure compliance with its habeas order. See, e.g., Castro Soc v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-13376-JEK (D. Mass. Aug. 17, 2026), Dkt. No. 19. On the record before the IJ and this Court, the single domestic incident resulting in dismissed charges—though concerning—is inadequate to establish dangerousness to the community by clear and convincing evidence, at least without a thorough analysis and consideration of alternatives to detention, neither of which was present here. See, e.g., id.; Guevara v. Moniz, 840 F. Supp. 3d 96, 98-99 (D. Mass. 2026); Quinonez Perez v. Wesling, No. 25-cv-13445-LTS, 2026 WL 2731085, at *4-5 & n.6 (D. Mass. Sep. 16, 2026) (emphasizing that “not every person with a pending—let alone dismissed—criminal charge poses a danger to the community” and that “the clear and convincing standard is a demanding standard to satisfy” (citation modified)). The Court notes that other judges in this District have repeatedly found that IJ Dubuc failed to provide noncitizens with constitutionally adequate bond hearings for much the same reasons that Morocho Santos’s bond hearing was inadequate. See, e.g., Castro Soc, No. 26-cv-13376-JEK, Dkt. No. 19 (collecting cases); Atariguana-Buele v. Warden, Plymouth Corr. Facility, No. 26-cv-12168-LTS, 2026 WL 1825934, at *3 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026) (collecting cases).For all these reasons, the motion to enforce is GRANTED. Respondents shall release petitioner or provide him a new bond hearing no later than November 12, 2026. If respondents pursue a new bond hearing, the hearing shall take place before a different IJ, and it must comply with all constitutional due-process requirements, including the allocation of burdens set out in Hernandez-Lara and consideration of whether conditions of release or alternatives to detention could mitigate any risk of danger or flight. On or before November 18, 2026, respondents shall submit a status report detailing their compliance with this Order. (MMM) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

Nov 04, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment