District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14277

#1

Sep 18, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-12044713 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Josue Dos Santos Sebastiao. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit I-589 Biometrics Notice from 2024, # 4 Exhibit Ice Locator showing at Plymouth)(Gagarin, Kira) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#2

Sep 18, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (JAM) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#3

Sep 18, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#4

Sep 18, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. Respondents shall determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and notify the Court no later than 1:00 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#5

Sep 18, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to Duty AUSA Alexandra Brazier and mailed to all respondents on 9/18/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

Sep 18, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Sep 18, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Sep 21, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Todd W. Blanche, Department of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Executive Office for Immigration Review, David Wesling (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

#7

Sep 21, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Todd W. Blanche, Department of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Executive Office for Immigration Review, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

#8

Sep 21, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING IN PART 1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. “Respondents’ position is that Petitioner is eligible for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226,” and that, “[a]ccordingly, Respondents do not object to the Court ordering a bond hearing.” Dkt. 7 at 1. The Court will therefore order a bond hearing. However, in light of Respondents' position “that Petitioner is eligible for a bond hearing,” id., and Respondents’ submission of Form I-286 indicating that Petitioner requested a bond hearing on September 8, 2026, Dkt. 7 -3 at 1, the Court does wonder why it was necessary for Petitioner to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on September 18, 2026, ten days after requesting a bond hearing. Dkt. 1 . The Petition is GRANTED in part. Respondents shall release Petitioner by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 28, 2026, unless, before that time, Petitioner is provided a bond hearing which comports with the standards articulated in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 26 (1st Cir. 2021), and in which the presiding immigration judge (“IJ”) considers alternatives to detention. Respondents are thereby ORDERED to file a status report by 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, detailing their compliance with this order. If a bond hearing was held, the status report shall state whether Petitioner has been granted bond, the date, time, and location of his release, or, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. Respondents should include a copy of the IJ’s decision with the status report.Respondents are further ORDERED to provide to the Court by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2026, an explanation for why Respondents had not already provided Petitioner with a bond hearing and instead seemingly awaited an order from this Court before doing so, despite taking the position that Petitioner was entitled to one.(MBM) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

Sep 21, 2026

Order