District of New Jersey • 1:26-cv-11372

MARTINEZ v. SOTO

Active

Case Information

Filed: September 02, 2026
Assigned to: Christine P. O'Hearn
Referred to:
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Active
Last Activity: September 08, 2026
Parties: View All Parties →

Docket Entries

#1
Sep 02, 2026
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by ANASTACIO LUNA MARTINEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Ice Locator, # 3 Exhibit EOIR, # 4 Exhibit Promis_Gavel)(CARDENAS, VERONICA) (Entered: 09/02/2026)
Main Document: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Sep 02, 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 9/2/2026. (jml, ) (Entered: 09/02/2026)
Sep 02, 2026
Judge Christine P. O'Hearn added. (jml, )
Sep 02, 2026
Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order
Sep 02, 2026
Add and Terminate Judges
#3
Sep 03, 2026
TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in which Petitioner alleges that he is being unlawfully detained without a bond hearing. If Petitioner was initially detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), his detention is unlawful under Buele Morocho v. Warden Phila. FDC, No. 26-1150, 2026 WL 2546223 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), and Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody under the same conditions that existed before his current detention, return all property to him, and promptly file a letter on the docket so confirming. If not released, within three (3) calendar days of this Order, Respondents shall file a letter on the docket addressing whether Petitioner: (1) has a criminal history warranting mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); (2) is subject to a final order of removal; or (3) was initially detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and afforded a bond hearing. Respondents are further reminded that the Court will not accept a "post hoc justification[] for detention." Arias Gudino v. Lowe, 785 F. Supp. 3d 27, 46 n.8 (M.D. Pa. 2025); cf. Marshall v. Lansing, 839 F.2d 933, 943-44 (3d Cir. 1988) ("A court must review the agency's actual on-the-record reasoning process... not a post hoc rationalization, or agency counsel's in-court reasoning."). Accordingly, if Respondents contend that § 1226(a) supplied the authority for Petitioner's detention from the outset, they must provide competent proof establishing that fact. So Ordered by Judge Christine P. O'Hearn on 9/3/2026. (hem, ) (Entered: 09/03/2026)
Sep 03, 2026
Text Order
#4
Sep 08, 2026
Notice of Appearance
Main Document: Notice of Appearance
#5
Sep 08, 2026
Letter
Main Document: Letter
Sep 08, 2026
Text Order
Sep 08, 2026
Terminate Civil Case

Parties

MARTINEZ
Party
SOTO
Party