Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01216

#1

Jun 29, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by WEMERSON DA SILVA RODRIGUES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Envelope) (bmh) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

Jun 29, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (ept)

#2

Jul 01, 2026

Remark: Complaint lodged without Motion for In Forma Pauperis or payment of filing fee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Envelope) ECF 1 hidden from view due, wrong event used. (bmh) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#3

Jul 01, 2026

ORDER that the Clerk of Court is to mark this case CLOSED. On 6/29/2026, Pro se Petitioner Wemerson Da Silva Rodrigues filed a Petition without filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or paying the applicable filing fee. ECF No. 1. Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Rodrigues must either (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee, which will reopen his case, or (2) submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis using civil form AO 239 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form), which is available on the Court's website at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/forms/application-proceed-district-court-without-prepaying-fees-or-costs-long-form. If that motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the case will be reopened. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/01/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

Order

#4

Jul 31, 2026

Proceed In Forma Pauperis

#5

Aug 03, 2026

ORDER GRANTING 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this case FORTHWITH. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mkn) (Entered: 08/03/2026)

#6

Aug 03, 2026

Case Management Order

#7

Aug 03, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by WEMERSON DA SILVA RODRIGUES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (dmh) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

Aug 03, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

#8

Aug 04, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Casey Martinez on behalf of FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, OTHER UNKNOWN FEDERAL OFFICERS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Martinez, Casey) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#9

Aug 04, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER. Response to 7 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 9/2/2026; Reply due 9/10/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/4/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mkn) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

Aug 04, 2026

Order

#12

Sep 14, 2026

ORDER DENYING 7 Second Petition for Habeas Corpus. Petitioner, a noncitizen, has been detained at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center since approximately October 2025. ECF No. 10 at 1. In a previous petition, Rodrigues v. Oddo et al, No. 26-cv-581-CCW (W.D. Pa. 2026) (Wiegand, J.) ("Rodrigues I"), Petitioner argued, inter alia, that he was subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge (IJ). The Court granted in part Petitioner's first petition on 5/20/2026, because it concluded that Petitioner was subject to discretionary detention pursuant to § 1226(a) and not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) and therefore that he was entitled to a bond hearing. See Rodrigues I, ECF No. 16. Petitioner's bond hearing was held on 5/27/2026, and the immigration judge denied bond based on a finding of flight risk. Id., ECF No. 25 at 1. Now, in a separate Petition, Petitioner requests immediate release from custody on several grounds. ECF No. 7. First, Petitioner argues that that his ongoing detention has become unreasonably prolonged in violation of his due process rights. See ECF No. 7 at 616. When considering a due process challenge to the length of detention of a noncitizen who has received a bond hearing, the Court considers the length of detention since the time of the noncitizen's most recent bond hearing. See Ndungu v. Doll, No. 4:20-CV-2268, 2021 WL 1916700, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2021). Here, Petitioner received a bond hearing less than four months ago. ECF No. 10 at 2. Four months of post-bond hearing detention is not unreasonably prolonged and does not violate Petitioner's due process rights. See Borbot v. Warden of Hudson Cty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 280 (detention of approximately eighteen months following bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) does not violate due process); Flores-Lopez v. Lowe, No. 1:21-CV-1839, 2021 WL 6134453, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021) (Conner, J.) (detention of approximately nineteen months following bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) does not violate due process.); Ndungu, 2021 WL 1916700, at *5 (Because Petitioner received a bond hearing approximately one month ago, he has received all the process he is due, and he is not entitled to relief based on the length of his detention.). To the extent Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his 5/27/2026 bond hearing, his challenge is dismissed because Petitioner has failed to produce a transcript or recording of the hearing and thus the Court is unable to determine whether that hearing had the three essential elements of a "fundamentally" fair bond hearing under the test set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022). Next, Petitioner makes several allegations concerning the conditions of this confinement. See ECF No. 7 at 1314, 16. But "[a] conditions-of-confinement claim is cognizable in § 2241 proceedings 'only in extreme cases.'" Folk v. Warden Schuylkill FCI, 2023 WL 5426740, at *12 (3d Cir. Aug. 23, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 324-25 (3d Cir. 2020)). Petitioner does not satisfy the extraordinarily narrow standard articulated in Hope and thus any conditions-of-confinement claim is noncognizable. Finally, Petitioner argues on multiple bases that, as a victim of alleged crimes, the government has failed to provide him certain constitutional and statutory protections. See ECF No. 7 at 56, 28. Whatever the merits of these claims, they do not "challenge the fact or duration of his imprisonment," i.e., the "core of habeas," and "[are] thus not cognizable under § 2241." Murray v. Bledsoe, 386 F. App'x 139, 140 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir.2002)). The 7 Petition fails to set forth any grounds for relief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 7 Petition is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/14/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#13

Sep 14, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT entered consistent with the above order (ECF No. 12). Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/14/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

Sep 14, 2026

Order

Sep 14, 2026

Judgment