District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14266

#1

Sep 17, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-12042279 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Kleber Leon Salto. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Miller, Jacob) Modified on 9/17/2026: Removed duplicate text and properly file exhibits as separate attachments. (MAC) (Main Document 1 replaced on 9/17/2026) (MAC). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/17/2026: # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2) (MAC). (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#2

Sep 17, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (FGD) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#3

Sep 17, 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). (CEH) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#4

Sep 17, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Standing Order Regarding Motion Practice. (CEH) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#5

Sep 17, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition, Stay of Transfer or Removal, and Required Response. (CEH) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

#6

Sep 17, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to AUSA Matthew Lyons, Rayford Farquhar, and USAMA Civil Process on 9/17/2026 at 4:17 pm and mailed to all respondents (CEH) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

Sep 17, 2026

Copy Mailed

Sep 17, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Sep 18, 2026

Emergency MOTION to Enforce Court Order and Immediate Return of Petitioner by Kleber Leon Salto.(Miller, Jacob) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#8

Sep 18, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Respondents are ordered to show cause in writing why petitioner was moved out of Massachusetts by 12:00 pm on Monday, September 21, 2026. Petitioner is not to be moved any place other than Massachusetts or New Hampshire until further order of the Court. Show Cause Response due by 9/21/2026.(CM) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

Sep 18, 2026

Order To Show Cause

#9

Sep 21, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Michael Krol, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

#10

Sep 21, 2026

RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Michael Krol, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling re 8 Order to Show Cause, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

#11

Sep 21, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On September 18, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce the Court's Service Order and for Immediate Release of Petitioner [Dkt. 7] because it appeared that Petitioner had been transferred to New Hampshire in violation of the Court's Service Order [Dkt. 5]. The Court ordered Respondents to "show cause in writing why petitioner was moved out of Massachusetts by 12:00 pm on Monday, September 21, 2026." [Dkt. 8]. In response, Respondents provided proof that Petitioner was transferred to New Hampshire at 12:30 PM on September 17, 2026, approximately two hours before the Petition was filed. [Dkt. 10]. As such, it appears that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Petitioner is ordered to show cause in writing why the Petition [Dkt. 1] should not be transferred to New Hampshire and the Emergency Motion to Enforce [Dkt. 7] should not be denied. Petitioner's response is due by noon on September 22, 2026.(CEH) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

Sep 21, 2026

Order

#12

Sep 22, 2026

RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Kleber Leon Salto re 11 Order . (Miller, Jacob) Modified on 9/22/2026 to modify docket text (CEH). (Entered: 09/22/2026)

#13

Sep 29, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On September 17, 2026, at 2:14 PM, Petitioner Kleber Leon Salto filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 1]. That same day, at 4:16 PM, the Court entered an Order staying the transfer of Petitioner outside of Massachusetts and ordering Respondents to reply to the Petition within three days of the filing of the Petition. [Dkt. 5]. The following day, Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion to Enforce Court Order and Immediate Return of Petitioner [Dkt. 7], which informed the Court that Petitioner had been moved to New Hampshire and requested that the Court order Petitioner's transfer back to Massachusetts. Upon receipt of this information, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause why Petitioner was moved out of Massachusetts. [Dkt. 8]. On September 21, 2026, Respondent informed the Court that Petitioner arrived in New Hampshire on September 17 at 12:30 PM, slightly less than two hours before the Petition was filed. [Dkt. 10]. That same day, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the case should not be transferred to New Hampshire and the Motion to Enforce should be denied. [Dkt. 11]. In response, Petitioner argued that jurisdiction is proper in Massachusetts under the unknown custodian rule. [Dkt. 12]. Respondents have not replied. As a general rule, “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). However, the Supreme Court has acknowledged an exception to this rule when “a prisoner is held in an undisclosed location by an unknown custodian.” Id. at 450 n.18 (citation omitted). In these special circumstances, “it is impossible to apply the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules.” Id. at 450 n.18. Accordingly, “the naming of a more remote custodian... satisfies the [habeas] statutory requirements.” Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 392 (2d Cir. 2025) (citation omitted).At the time the Petition was filed, counsel confirmed Petitioner's location using ICE's Online Detainee Locator System, which listed him as detained in Plymouth, Massachusetts. [Dkts. 7; 12 at 1]. In fact, Petitioner was already in New Hampshire. At the time of filing the Petition [Dkt. 1], Petitioner's location was unknown, as ICE did not disclose Petitioner's transfer to Petitioner's attorney or family, even though Petitioner's attorney was counsel of record in ICE's system. [Dkt. 12 at 4]. Respondents did not inform Petitioner’s counsel of his transfer until 5:47 PM on September 17, 2026. [Dkt. 12 at 3-4]. Given these undisputed facts, the Court finds that Respondents were “not forthcoming with respect to... [Petitioner's] place of detention,” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 454 (Kennedy, J. concurring), and despite a “reasonably diligent effort” by Petitioner's attorney to find such information on Petitioner's behalf, counsel was unable to determine Petitioner's location at the time of filing, Cabral Moreta v. Wesling, No. 26-CV-10868, 2026 WL 632702, at *2 (D. Mass. Mar. 5, 2026) (quoting Suri v. Trump, 785 F. Supp. 3d 128, 143-44 (E.D. Va. 2025)). Petitioner “satisfie[d] the [habeas] statutory requirements” by naming more remote custodians, the Acting Director of ICE and Secretary of Homeland Security. Ozturk, 136 F.4th at 392. Therefore, the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition [Dkt. 1], pursuant to the unknown custodian exception. This still leaves the issue of Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Court Order and Immediate Return of Petitioner. [Dkt. 7]. In that Motion, Petitioner exclusively relied upon Respondents' alleged violation of the Court's September 17 Order. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that Respondents did not violate the Order. Petitioner's transfer to New Hampshire was initiated at 6:15 AM on September 17, 2026, and Petitioner arrived in New Hampshire at 12:30 PM that same day. [Dkt. 10-1 at 2, 5]. The Order was not issued until 4:16 PM that day. [Dkt. 5]. Because the transfer occurred before the Order was issued, Respondents did not violate the Order. Petitioner has not provided any other basis for transferring Petitioner back to Massachusetts. As such, Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Court Order and Immediate Return of Petitioner [Dkt. 7] is DENIED. Having established that the Court retains jurisdiction over the Petition, Respondents are ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the Petition no later than three business days from the filing of this Order, unless the Parties agree on an otherwise reasonable briefing schedule. If Respondents oppose, Petitioner may reply no later than three business days from the filing of Respondents’ Opposition. (CEH) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

Sep 29, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#14

Oct 02, 2026

Assented to MOTION to Dismiss by Kleber Leon Salto. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bond Hearing Order)(Miller, Jacob) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

#15

Oct 02, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 14 Motion to Dismiss. (JAM) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

#16

Oct 02, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (JAM) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

Oct 02, 2026

Order on Motion to Dismiss