Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01456

#1

Jul 29, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9762812), filed by LUDWIN CABRERA JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I) (Ellenberg, Stanley) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#2

Jul 29, 2026

First MOTION for Order to Show Cause by LUDWIN CABRERA JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Ellenberg, Stanley) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

Jul 29, 2026

Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan added. (elt)

#3

Jul 31, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Petitioner's counsel shall serve Respondents with a copy of this Order and the Petition via e-mail, as specified, and file a notice of compliance. Respondents' counsel shall file a notice of appearance within 3 days of the filing of Petitioner's Certificate of Compliance of Service. Respondents shall file any responses or answers to the petition within 14 days of the date of service. Petitioner's reply is due within 5 days of Respondents' response. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 7/31/2026. (pak) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#4

Jul 31, 2026

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Petitioner requests an order requiring Respondents to show cause why the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. Petitioner invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which provides that "[a] court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." Section 2243 further provides that "[t]he writ, or order to show cause... shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed." Courts within this Circuit have found that Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings ("Habeas Rules"), applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas Rules, provides more flexible time limits for ordering an answer and supersedes the time limits of § 2243 to the extent there is a conflict. See Alvierez v. Bondi et al., Civil Action No. 26-532 (JXN), 2026 WL 146013, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2026)(collecting cases). This Court agrees. Accordingly, in light of the Court's 3 Case Management Order requiring Respondents to respond to the Petition within 14 days of service, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 2 Motion for Order to Show Cause is DENIED. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 7/31/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

Jul 31, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause

#5

Aug 05, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Jerome A. Moschetta on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#6

Aug 13, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Compliance re 3 Case Management Order,, by Stanley Ellenberg on behalf of LUDWIN CABRERA JORDAN (Ellenberg, Stanley) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#7

Aug 17, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 08/17/2026)

#8

Aug 18, 2026

ORDER. For the reasons stated in Villagrez v. Bondi, et al., No. 26-72, 2026 WL 545380 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2026) (Ranjan, J.), the Court GRANTS the 1 habeas petition. Additionally, to the extent that the government argues that the presence of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) subjects Petitioner to mandatory detention, the Court disagrees. See Qasemi v. Francis, No. 25-CV-10029 (LJL), 2025 WL 3654098, at *1011, 13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025) (finding that Section 1182(d)(5)(A)'s language of "returned to the custody from which he was paroled" refers to DHS's control over Petitioner, not the prior detention status to which Petitioner was subjected to at an earlier time). The Court ISSUES the writ, on these terms. (1) Respondents shall cause Petitioner to be taken to a neutral immigration judge of the Executive Office of Immigration Review for an individualized bond hearing to occur within 30 days of this order, or else release Petitioner by such date. (2) Respondents shall ensure that such a hearing include the required due process, i.e., at a minimum, factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to Petitioner; an opportunity to make arguments on the Petitioner's behalf; and the right to an individualized determination of Petitioner's interests. See Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022). (3) Petitioner shall be responsible for securing the necessary transcripts and record of the bond hearing. The Court further finds that Respondents' position was substantially justified in this case, so no fees shall be awarded. The Court trusts the immigration judge to comply with this order and ensure that Petitioner is provided due process, and therefore the immigration judge shall explain his or her individualized determination on the record. See Kamara v. Atty Gen. of U.S., 420 F.3d 202, 212 (3d Cir. 2005). The Clerk of Court shall administratively CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 8/18/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 08/18/2026)

#9

Aug 18, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT, entered consistent with the above order (ECF 8). Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 8/18/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 08/18/2026)

Aug 18, 2026

Order

Aug 18, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)