District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12922

#1

Jun 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Clayton Samuel Olive. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope). (FGD) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#2

Jun 26, 2026

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Clayton Samuel Olive in in Support re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). (FGD) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#3

Jun 26, 2026

MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Clayton Samuel Olive. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit). (FGD) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#4

Jun 26, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick 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. (EZG) (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). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#6

Jun 26, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than July 2, 2026. (Attachments: # 1 *SEALED* Appendix)(Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#7

Jun 26, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to all respondents on 6/26/2026: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 2 Memorandum of Law and 6 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of RemovalCopies of the following were mailed to Clayton Samuel Olive on 6/26/2026: 6 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal and docket sheet (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jun 26, 2026

Copy Mailed

#8

Jun 30, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#9

Jul 02, 2026

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

#10

Jul 02, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner is given leave to file a reply brief on or before July 9, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#11

Jul 02, 2026

A copy of the following was mailed to Clayton Samuel Olive on 7/2/2026: 10 Electronic Order (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

Jul 02, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jul 02, 2026

Order

#12

Jul 07, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $ 5.00, receipt number 100015893 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (NVB) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

Jul 07, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#13

Jul 08, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#14

Jul 08, 2026

Extension of Time

#15

Jul 08, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to July 13, 2026 to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Habeas Petition (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

#16

Jul 08, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER denying as moot 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

Jul 08, 2026

Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel

Jul 08, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#17

Jul 13, 2026

Memorandum re Petition

#18

Jul 20, 2026

Vacate

#19

Jul 21, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#20

Jul 31, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.Petitioner Clayton Olive filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 26, 2026. ECF 1 . Olive, a citizen of Grenada, entered the United States in 2003 on a visa from Trinidad and Tobago. ECF 2, at 3-4. In 2004, an Immigration Judge ordered him removed to Grenada or, alternatively, to Trinidad and Tobago. ECF 9-1. It is undisputed that his order of removal is final. In 2011, Olive was taken into the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and, in 2012, released on an Order of Supervision under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). ECF 9-2; ECF 2, at 4. His Order of Supervision contained a number of conditions of release including, as relevant here, a condition that he “not commit any crimes while on” supervision. ECF 9-2, at 3. On June 11, 2026, ICE arrested Olive at its office in Manchester, New Hampshire and revoked his Order of Supervision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1). ECF 2, at 4; ECF 9-3. ICE served him that day with a Notice of Revocation of Release stating that his release was revoked because he had “violated a condition of [his] release.” ECF 9-3, at 1. “Specifically,” it stated, “you [h]ave been arrested several times.” Id. Olive has an extensive record of arrests and criminal charges, including charges in 2024 for domestic violence, stalking, criminal threatening, placing someone in fear of bodily injury, domestic violence and simple assault with bodily injury or physical contact, assault in the second degree, and strangulation; a charge in 2019 for willful concealment; and charges in 2014 for driving while under the influence and other motor vehicle infractions. ECF 9-4. It is undisputed that, of all of Olive’s charges while he was on supervision, only one—namely, driving with a revoked or suspended license—has resulted in a conviction, and that occurred in 2014. Id. at 5. The Notice of Revocation informed Olive that he would be afforded a prompt informal interview that same day, June 11, 2026, and it was signed by Mark J. Anzelmo, Assistant Field Office Director. ECF 9-3, at 2. A form titled “Alien Informal Interview Upon Revocation of Order of Supervision,” dated June 11, 2026, indicates that a Deportation Officer conducted an informal interview with Olive that day, but that Olive “did not want to make any statements.” Id. at 3. Olive remains in ICE’s custody in Plymouth, Massachusetts. ECF 1, ¶ 2. Olive claims that the revocation of his Order of Supervision and subsequent detention was not lawful because ICE did not comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). Specifically, he disputes (1) that he violated a condition of his supervision, warranting revocation under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1); (2) that he received an informal interview, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3); and (3) that Assistant Field Office Director Anzelmo was authorized to revoke his Order of Supervision. These errors, he contends, deprived him of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The respondents argue that the revocation of Olive’s supervision complied fully with Section 241.13(i) and due process requirements. Section 241.13(i) provides that “[a]ny alien who has been released under an order of supervision under this section who violates any of the conditions of release may be returned to custody and is subject to the penalties described in section 243(b) of the Act.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1). It further requires that “the alien . . . be notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release” and receive “an initial informal interview promptly after his or her return to . . . custody.” Id. § 241.13(i)(3). This regulation requires ICE to give “meaningful notice of the basis for its revocation” of release. Perez-Escobar v. Moniz, 792 F. Supp. 3d 224, 226 (D. Mass. 2025). ICE’s revocation of Olive’s Order of Supervision satisfied the procedural requirements in its regulation. First, the Notice of Revocation gave Olive meaningful notice of the basis for the revocation of his supervision. Unlike other cases in which this Court has determined that the agency’s revocation notice merely parroted the language of the regulation, Olive’s Notice of Revocation added further reasons particular to him—namely, that his supervision was revoked in light of his significant arrest record that amounted to a violation of a condition of his release. ECF 9-3, at 1. This gave Olive adequate notice that his criminal history was the basis for the revocation, and that the condition of release that was allegedly violated was the condition that he “not commit any crimes while on” supervision. ECF 9-2, at 3. With this notice, Olive would have been able to meaningfully address those allegations during the informal interview. Olive contends that the fact of his arrests and charges alone—without further evidence concerning whether he committed the crimes for which he was charged—cannot justify a finding that he committed a crime while on release. But the Court does not need to reach this issue, because Olive does not dispute that he did commit a crime while on supervision—driving with a revoked or suspended license—for which he was found guilty in 2014. ECF 9-4, at 5. He argues that this conviction “is plainly insufficient to warrant [his] deprivation of liberty twelve years later.” ECF 17, at 5. But he cites no case law suggesting that ICE lacks authority under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) to revoke an Order of Supervision based on an old criminal conviction, even when it was aware of the conviction and did not previously revoke release. In the circumstances of this case—where Olive violated a condition of release by committing a crime twelve years earlier, coupled with a significant record of more recent arrests for violent and nonviolent crimes—it does not violate due process or the regulation to revoke the Order of Supervision based on that violation. Second, Olive argues that he was not given an informal interview in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). ECF 2, at 7-9. But the only evidence before the Court—the Alien Informal Interview form—indicates that ICE did conduct an informal interview with Olive on June 11, 2026, and that he declined at that time to make a statement. ECF 9-3, at 3. Olive’s choice not to make a statement during the interview does not warrant a finding that ICE failed to comply with Section 241.13(i)(3). Nor has Olive provided the Court with evidence, through an affidavit or otherwise, supporting his claim that he did not receive the interview. Third, Olive disputes that Assistant Field Office Director Anzelmo had authority to revoke his Order of Supervision. But the record indicates that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security delegated to the Assistant Secretary of ICE, “and through him to . . . other officers or employees of ICE” the “[a]uthority under the immigration laws, including . . . 8 U.S.C. . . . 1231” to “detain aliens.” ECF 9-5, at 4, § 2(T). And one of those officers of ICE, the Acting Executive Associate Director, further delegated authority to Assistant Field Office Directors to “revoke the release of aliens on” Orders of Supervision under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 if, among other reasons, “[t]here has been a violation of the conditions of release.” ECF 9-6 at 1-2. Accordingly, Assistant Field Office Director Anzelmo had authority to revoke Olive’s Order of Supervision. The Court concludes, for these reasons, that ICE complied with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) in revoking Olive’s supervision and re-detaining him. And because ICE complied with its regulations, Olive has not demonstrated that his detention of less than two months infringes his due process rights. Olive’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF 1, is therefore DENIED. His request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, ECF 2, at 10-12, is also DENIED. The respondents’ motion to vacate the service order, ECF 18, is GRANTED, and this Court’s Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal, ECF 6, is hereby VACATED. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#21

Jul 31, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: JUDGMENT entered. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

Jul 31, 2026

Order on Motion to Vacate