District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13257

#1

Jul 15, 2026

Second PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11891217 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Robson Lima Ramos. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit List, # 4 Supplement Proposed Order). (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#2

Jul 15, 2026

Summons Returned Unexecuted by Robson Lima Ramos as to Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Markwayne Mullin, Antone Muniz. (Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#3

Jul 15, 2026

Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Robson Lima Ramos. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kalil, Clarissa) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#4

Jul 16, 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. (NMC) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

#5

Jul 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). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Jul 16, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Jul 17, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER REASSIGNING CASE entered. After consultation with Judge Kelley, this case is hereby REASSIGNED to her session under Local Rule 40.1(g)(9) and (i). This case should have been designated as related to Lima Ramos v. Noem, No. 26-cv-10211-AK (D. Mass.) in the petitioner's civil cover sheet. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#7

Jul 17, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#8

Jul 17, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Reassignment. District Judge Angel Kelley 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 Donald L. Cabell. (CEH) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#9

Jul 17, 2026

Copy re 7 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), emailed to AUSA Alexandra Brazier, Rayford Farquhar, and USAMA Civil Process on 7/17/2026 at 9:58 am and mailed to All Respondents (CEH) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#10

Jul 17, 2026

Order

Jul 17, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jul 17, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jul 17, 2026

Order Reassigning Case

#11

Jul 20, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#12

Jul 20, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#13

Jul 21, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 12 MOTION for Extension of Time to 7/27/2026 to File Response/Reply as to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (CEH) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

Jul 21, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#14

Jul 27, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#15

Jul 27, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to July 29, 2026 to File Response/Reply as to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (CEH) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

Jul 27, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#16

Jul 29, 2026

Notice - Other

#17

Jul 29, 2026

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

#18

Jul 29, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#19

Jul 30, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Respondents' Notice of Intent to Transfer Petitioner to Effectuate Removal. [Dkt. 16]. Petitioner opposes the Notice and seeks to extend the "protections contained in [the Court's Service Order at Dkt. 7] while [the Court] considers the Petition, the emergency motion, and Respondents' request for relief." [Dkt. 18 at 10]. In light of Respondents' Response [Dkt. 17] and Petitioner's Reply [Dkt. 18] thereto filed on July 29, 2026, the Petition [Dkt. 1] and Second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. 3] have become ripe for decision. To give the Court an opportunity to consider whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction, and if so to determine the validity of the habeas petition, the Court may order Respondents to preserve the status quo. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) (ruling that the District Court ha[s] the power to preserve existing conditions while it [is] determining its own authority to grant injunctive relief, unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous). Such an order is valid unless and until it is overturned, even when the issuing court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to determine the merits of the underlying action. See id. at 294-95. That principle applies with even greater force where the action the court enjoins would otherwise destroy its jurisdiction or moot the case. See United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906).Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the stay on Petitioner's transfer and removal pursuant to the Service Order [Dkt. 7] remains in effect until the Court decides the Petition [Dkt. 1].(FGD) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

Jul 30, 2026

Order