District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12912

#1

Jun 25, 2026

Second PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11845714 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Conrado Agustin Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form Category Form, # 3 Exhibit Ex. A - ODLS, # 4 Exhibit Ex. B - Petitioner's Evidence, # 5 Exhibit Ex. C - DHS's Evidence, # 6 Exhibit Ex. D - Bond Denial)(Ritenour, Amelia) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#2

Jun 25, 2026

NOTICE by Conrado Agustin Lopez Notice of Relatedness to 1:26-cv-11519-BEM (Ritenour, Amelia) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#3

Jun 26, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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. (EZG) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#4

Jun 26, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL.Respondents shall determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and notify the Court no later than 1:00 p.m. on Monday, June 29, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1, 2026.(CAM) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#5

Jun 26, 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). (CAM) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#6

Jun 26, 2026

Notice of Place of Confinement filed in error, deleted. Govt. does not contest that the Petitioner is in Massachusetts. Modified on 6/26/2026 (CAM). (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#7

Jun 26, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition,, emailed to Duty AUSA Balakrishna and mailed to respondents. on 6/26/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#8

Jun 26, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner alleges his bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate. Dkt. 1 at 2, 7-12. In the previously ordered response due Wednesday, July 1, 2026, Dkt. 4, Respondents are ORDERED to show cause as to why the petition should not be granted. Respondents must produce with their response a recording or transcript of Petitioner's bond hearing and any evidence provided to the immigration judge that Petitioner did not include in his petition. (CAM) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jun 26, 2026

Order

Jun 26, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jun 26, 2026

Notice - Other

#9

Jun 29, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#10

Jun 29, 2026

Response to Court Order

#11

Jul 01, 2026

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

#12

Jul 06, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents are ORDERED to produce to the Court a recording or transcript of Petitioner's bond hearing on or before Wednesday, July 8, 2026. (MBM) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

Jul 06, 2026

Order

#13

Jul 08, 2026

Response to Court Order

#14

Jul 15, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING in part the motion to enforce judgment. “Detention must ‘bear[ ] [a] reasonable relation to [its] purpose,’ and requiring the Government to consider alternatives [to detention] helps ensure such decisions are properly tailored to the underlying danger or flight risk concerns.” Costa v. McDonald, 2026 WL 371198, at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 10, 2026) (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001)). Because the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in this case failed to address less restrictive alternatives to detention, Dkt. 13 (audio recording on file with the Court), the IJ “failed to provide Petitioner with constitutionally sufficient procedure,” Costa, 2026 WL 371198, at *2; see also Rogerio Ramos v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11388-LTS, Dkt. 19 at 4–5 (Apr. 27, 2026) (“the bond hearing held in this case was deficient, and thus did not comport with this Court’s Order” because “the IJ failed to consider whether any alternatives to detention existed that would ensure the safety of the community notwithstanding the context-specific evidence of danger advanced by the government”); Mijango Velasco v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-11355-LTS, Dkt. 19 at 5 (Apr. 24, 2026) (same). Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part. Respondents shall release Petitioner by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, unless, before that time, Petitioner is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a) which comports with the standards articulated in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 26 (1st Cir. 2021) and in which the IJ considers alternatives to detention. Respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report within 24 hours of the Immigration Judge’s decision on bond, stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial, or whether he has been released, and if so, the date, time, and location of his release. Respondents should include a copy of the IJ’s decision with their status report.(MBM) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

Jul 15, 2026

Order

#15

Jul 29, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On July 15, 2026, the Court ordered Petitioner to be provided with a bond hearing by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, July 22, 2026. Dkt. 14 . The Court further ordered Respondents to "file a status report within 24 hours of the Immigration Judge’s decision on bond." Id. A week has passed since the bond hearing deadline, and no status report has been filed. The respondents are, accordingly, ORDERED to file a status report by July 30, 2026 notifying the Court whether the petitioner has been granted bond and released or, if his request for bond was denied, providing the reasons for that denial. Respondents should include a copy of the IJ’s decision with their status report. (MBM) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#16

Jul 29, 2026

Status Report

#17

Jul 29, 2026

Judgment

Jul 29, 2026

Order