Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01738

#1

Sep 02, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9851972), filed by JOSE PRUDENCIO VASQUEZ-LOPEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Williams, Ysabel) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

#2

Sep 03, 2026

First MOTION for Order to Show Cause, Emergency MOTION for Stay of Removal by JOSE PRUDENCIO VASQUEZ-LOPEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Proposed Order filed at entry 4 ) (Williams, Ysabel). Added MOTION for Stay of Removal on 9/4/2026. (kss) Modified text on 9/4/2026 to link to corrected Proposed Order. (jd) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#3

Sep 03, 2026

BRIEF in Support re 2 Motion for Order to Show Cause filed by JOSE PRUDENCIO VASQUEZ-LOPEZ. (Williams, Ysabel) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

Sep 03, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (ert)

#4

Sep 04, 2026

Errata re 2 Motion for Order to Show Cause, Motion to Stay, Clerk's Request for Corrective Action, by JOSE PRUDENCIO VASQUEZ-LOPEZ. Reason for Correction: Case number on Proposed Orded. (Williams, Ysabel) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

Sep 04, 2026

CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 2 First MOTION for Order to Show Cause, Emergency MOTION for Stay of Removal.ERROR: No case number on proposed order.CORRECTION REQUIRED: Filer is directed to file the document with a corrected case number using the Errata event. (kss)

Sep 04, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 2 First MOTION for Order to Show Cause, Emergency MOTION for Stay of Removal. ERROR: Multiple relief motion filed requesting only a relief. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Filer to select all relief types sought when filing the Motion event. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. (kss)

#5

Sep 05, 2026

First MOTION for Order to Show Cause by JOSE PRUDENCIO VASQUEZ-LOPEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Williams, Ysabel) (Entered: 09/05/2026)

#6

Sep 11, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/11/2026. (tmc) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#7

Sep 11, 2026

ORDER DENYING 2 5 Motions for Order to Show Cause. Petitioner requests an order requiring Respondents to show cause why his 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., No. 26-532 (JXN), 2026 WL 146013, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2026) (collecting cases). This Court agrees. The Court has issued a case management order setting forth a deadline for Respondents to answer the 1 Petition. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 2 5 Motions for Order to Show Cause are DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/11/2026. 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: 09/11/2026)

#8

Sep 11, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Compliance by Ysabel Williams on behalf of JOSE PRUDENCIO VASQUEZ-LOPEZ (Williams, Ysabel) Modified text on 9/14/2026. (cel) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

Sep 11, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause AND Order on Motion to Show Cause AND Order on Motion to Stay

#9

Sep 22, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Jerome A. Moschetta on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Philadelphia ICE ERO, DAVID VENTURELLA, WARDEN MOSHANNON VALLEY ICE PROCESSING CENTER. (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

#10

Sep 22, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER. Response to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 9/25/2026; Reply due 9/30/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/22/2026. 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: 09/22/2026)

Sep 22, 2026

Order

#11

Sep 25, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Philadelphia ICE ERO, DAVID VENTURELLA, WARDEN MOSHANNON VALLEY ICE PROCESSING CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Moschetta, Jerome) Modified text on 9/28/2026. (cel) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#12

Oct 23, 2026

ORDER DENYING 1 Petition. In the 1 Petition, Petitioner, a noncitizen detained by Respondents at Moshannon Valley Processing Center at the outset of this case, asks this Court to, inter alia, order Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 1 at 2, 910. Respondents, in turn, argue that the Petition should be denied because Petitioner has failed to fully exhaust available administrative remedies. ECF No. 11 at 24. The Court agrees with Respondents. Generally, failure to exhaust administrative remedies will preclude habeas review. See Moscato v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996) ("Federal prisoners are ordinarily required to exhaust their administrative remedies before petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241."); Callwood v. Enos, 230 F.3d 627, 643 (3d Cir. 2000) ("Although there is no statutory exhaustion requirement attached to § 2241, we have consistently applied an exhaustion requirement to claims brought under § 2241."). In this context, administrative exhaustion is a prudential requirement, and so may be excused under limited circumstances, for example, where a petitioner has shown that it would be futile to pursue such administrative relief. See Gonzales v. Oddo, et al., 2026 WL 797423, *3 (W.D. Pa. March 23, 2026) (Kelly, M.J.). Administrative exhaustion may also be excused where the presented issues exclusively involve statutory construction. See Vasquez v. Strada, 684 F.3d 431, 433-34 (3d Cir. 2012). Here, as Respondents assert and Petitioner does not dispute, Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a). ECF No. 11 at 2. Accordingly, as Respondents agree, id. at 24, Petitioner has access to an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge through administrative procedures under § 1226(a) and related regulations. See Contant v. Holder, 352 F. App'x 692, 695 (3d Cir. 2009) (collecting regulations). Petitioner has not alleged that they have requested an individualized bond hearing. Nor, on this record, has Petitioner shown that requesting an individualized bond hearing would be futile, given that Respondents agree that Petitioner is entitled to pursue that relief administratively. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that such failure is not excused for futility. And the Court further concludes that Petitioner has not identified any basis that justifies his immediate release. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 1 Petition is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/23/2026. 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: 10/23/2026)

#13

Oct 23, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT entered consistent with the above order (ECF No. 12). Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/23/2026. 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: 10/23/2026)

Oct 23, 2026

Order

Oct 23, 2026

Judgment