District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-08963

#1

Jul 19, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17679841.), filed by LUIS GERARDO GUZNAY CEPEDA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order LGGC PROPOSED ORDER, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet LGCC JS 44, # 3 Certification NITA KUNDANMAL VERIFICATION)(KUNDANMAL, NITA) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

#2

Jul 19, 2026

Notice of Pro Bono Appearance by NITA KUNDANMAL on behalf of LUIS GERARDO GUZNAY CEPEDA (KUNDANMAL, NITA) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

#3

Jul 19, 2026

First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order w ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by LUIS GERARDO GUZNAY CEPEDA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order LGGC PROPOSED ORDER OTSC)(KUNDANMAL, NITA) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

#4

Jul 19, 2026

TEXT ORDER. Respondents are hereby enjoined from transferring Petitioner from New Jersey pending further Order of the Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/19/2026. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

#5

Jul 19, 2026

TEXT ORDER: TEXT ORDER: Petitioner Luis Gerardo Guzay Cepeda filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging he is unlawfully detained by immigration authorities under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), D.E. 1 ("Petition"). Along with his Petition, Petitioner also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking an order enjoining his transfer or removal from outside the District of New Jersey and for his immediate release. D.E. 3 ("TRO Motion"). It is ORDERED that, if Respondents contest Petitioner's factual allegations and/or contend that Petitioner has a criminal record and/or assert this case is distinguishable from the cases in this district previously addressing § 1225, they shall file an expedited answer to the Petition within 24 hours of this Order. If Respondents do not file expedited answer, under this Court's decision in Lomeu v. Soto, No. 25-16589, 2025 WL 2981296, at *9 (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2025), and other recent decisions in this District interpreting § 1225, including Rivera Zumba v. Bondi, No. 25-14626, 2025 WL 2753496 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025) (interpreting § 1225(b)(2)), Rivas Rodriguez v. Rokosky, No. 25-17419, 2025 WL 3485628 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2025) (interpreting § 1225(b)(1)), accepting Petitioner's allegations as true, the Court holds Petitioner's mandatory detention under Section 1225(b) is unlawful and further violates his liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. If Respondents do not file an expedited answer in opposition, they shall instead release Petitioner within 24 hours of this order and file a written notice of Petitioner's release within three days thereafter. If Respondents subsequently detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), they shall comply with the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8) and (d). The TRO Motion, D.E. 3, is DISMISSED as MOOT because the Court has enjoined Petitioner's transfer from New Jersey and ordered an expedited resolution of this matter. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 7/19/2026. (ps) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

#6

Jul 19, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by SHARI-ANN ALYCIA SASU on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DAVID VENTURELLA, WARDEN (SASU, SHARI-ANN) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

Jul 19, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

Jul 19, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

Jul 19, 2026

Text Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

Jul 19, 2026

Judge Evelyn Padin added. (jml, )

#7

Jul 20, 2026

RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ANSWER by TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DAVID VENTURELLA, WARDEN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 4, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 5, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 6, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 7, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 8, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 9)(SASU, SHARI-ANN) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

#8

Aug 03, 2026

TEXT ORDER: : Petitioner Luis Gerardo Guzay Cepeda filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by immigration authorities and seeking immediate release. D.E. 1 ("Petition"). The Court previously enjoined Respondents from transferring Petitioner from New Jersey, D.E. 4 ("No-Transfer Order"), and directed Respondents to file an expedited answer, D.E. 5 . Respondents filed their expedited answer on 7/20/2026. D.E. 7 ("Answer"). The time permitted for Petitioner to file a reply has expired, and Petitioner has not filed one. Petitioner entered the United States through the Visa Waiver Program on 8/8/2014 and was authorized to remain until 11/5/2014. He remained in the United States beyond that date. On 7/10/2026, immigration officers arrested Petitioner and served him with a Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order and a Final Administrative Removal Order directing his removal to Spain. Answer at 1-2; D.E. [7-2]; D.E. [7-5]. Thus, contrary to the Petition's allegation--made on information and belief--that Petitioner had not been issued a final order of removal, the record establishes that a final administrative removal order was entered before Petitioner filed this action. Respondents principally contend that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1187(c)(2)(E) and alternatively contend that his detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). The Court need not determine whether § 1187(c)(2)(E) independently authorizes Petitioner's detention because the Final Administrative Removal Order renders § 1231 controlling here. Section 1231(a)(1) provides a ninety-day period during which the Government must effectuate a noncitizen's removal, and § 1231(a)(2) mandates detention during that removal period. Petitioner has been detained since 7/10/2026 and remains within the statutory ninety-day removal period. Petitioner's contention that § 1226(a) governs his detention is therefore unpersuasive. Section 1226(a) governs detention pending a decision whether a noncitizen is to be removed. Petitioner, however, is detained following the entry of a final administrative removal order. His related procedural-due-process claim, which rests on the asserted failure to provide the custody procedures applicable under § 1226(a), fails for the same reason. To the extent Petitioner challenges the duration of his post-removal-order detention, that challenge is premature. Accordingly, the Petition, D.E. 1, is DENIED. This disposition is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new habeas petition should his detention later exceed the period authorized by § 1231 or should materially different circumstances arise. The No-Transfer Order, D.E. 4, is DISSOLVED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 8/3/2026. (bt) (Entered: 08/03/2026)

Aug 03, 2026

Text Order

Aug 03, 2026

***Civil Case Terminated. (wh)

Aug 04, 2026

Terminate Civil Case

#9

Aug 17, 2026

First MOTION for Reconsideration re 8 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,, 7 Response to Habeas Petition, by LUIS GERARDO GUZNAY CEPEDA. (KUNDANMAL, NITA) (Entered: 08/17/2026)

#10

Aug 18, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Respondents shall file a brief in opposition to Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, D.E. 9, on or before 8/24/2026. Petitioner may file a reply within three days of the date of filing of Respondents' opposition. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 8/18/2026. (bt) (Entered: 08/18/2026)

Aug 18, 2026

Set Deadlines as to 9 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 8 Text Order, 7 Response to Habeas Petition, . Motion set for 9/21/2026 before Judge Evelyn Padin. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (adc, )

Aug 18, 2026

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

Aug 18, 2026

Text Order

#11

Aug 21, 2026

RESPONSE in Opposition filed by TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DAVID VENTURELLA, WARDEN re 9 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 8 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,, 7 Response to Habeas Petition, Letter Brief from Respondents (SASU, SHARI-ANN) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#12

Aug 28, 2026

Second MOTION for Reconsideration by LUIS GERARDO GUZNAY CEPEDA. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Letter Application for Leave to File Reply Out of Time)(KUNDANMAL, NITA) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

Aug 31, 2026

Set Deadlines as to 12 Second MOTION for Reconsideration . Motion set for 9/21/2026 before Judge Evelyn Padin. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (ld)

Aug 31, 2026

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#13

Sep 01, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Luis Gerardo Guznay-Cepeda's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 3, 2026 Text Order denying his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, D.E. 9 ("Reconsideration Motion"). D.E. 8 ("August 3 Order"); D.E. 1 ("Petition"). Respondents oppose reconsideration. D.E. 11 ("Opposition"). Petitioner thereafter filed a reply, D.E. 12 ("Reply"), together with a consented-to application for leave to file the Reply three days out of time, D.E. [12-1] ("Leave Application"). Because the brief delay caused no prejudice and Respondents consent, the Court will consider the Reply. Reconsideration is warranted only upon an intervening change in controlling law, previously unavailable evidence, or the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Caf ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Petitioner has not met that standard. The Court first acknowledges that the August 3 Order stated that the time for Petitioner to reply to Respondents' expedited answer, D.E. 7 ("Answer"), had expired when no reply deadline had been set. That error does not warrant reconsideration because the Court has now considered both the arguments raised in the Reconsideration Motion and Petitioner's Reply. Petitioner principally argues that the July 10, 2026 Final Administrative Removal Order ("FARO") could not have become administratively final because DHS issued it before expiration of the 48-hour response period stated in the Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order. In his Reply, Petitioner characterizes that argument as concerning only the FARO's administrative finality for purposes of detention, rather than its validity. But the requested determination necessarily depends on concluding that DHS's alleged failure to follow the required procedure rendered the issued FARO legally ineffective. That is a challenge to the validity of the removal order itself, regardless of how the claim is characterized, and such challenges must proceed through the INA's petition-for-review process rather than a § 2241 habeas petition. See Tazu v. Att'y Gen. U.S., 975 F.3d 292, 296-300 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that the INA funnels removal-related claims, including "challenges to the validity of the removal order," into a petition for review). Petitioner's reliance on United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), and Leslie v. Att'y Gen. U.S., 611 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2010), does not alter the jurisdictional channel Congress established for challenges to removal orders. Petitioner therefore has not established clear error in the August 3 Order's conclusion that, based on the existing FARO, his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Accordingly, the Court need not reach Petitioner's renewed arguments concerning detention under § 1187 or § 1226(a). His separate challenge to Respondents' description of his municipal court history likewise does not warrant reconsideration because the August 3 Order did not rely on that history. Accordingly, the Reconsideration Motion, D.E. 9, is DENIED. To the extent D.E. 12 is construed as a separate motion for reconsideration rather than a reply in support of D.E. 9, it is likewise DENIED. Petitioner's request to restrain his transfer or removal pending disposition of reconsideration is DENIED as MOOT. This denial remains without prejudice to a new habeas petition based on materially changed circumstances or detention exceeding the period authorized by § 1231. The Clerk shall keep this matter CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 9/1/2026. (ps) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

Sep 01, 2026

Text Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions