Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01876

#1

Sep 22, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9896118), filed by MAXIMINO CONTRERAS. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Gibbs, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

Sep 23, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand presiding. (bmh)

#2

Sep 24, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/24/2026. (tmc) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#3

Sep 24, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by MAXIMINO CONTRERAS re 2 Case Management Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Email Service) (Gibbs, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#4

Sep 25, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Nathaniel G. Ecker on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL ROSE, DAVID J. VENTURELLA. (Ecker, Nathaniel) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#5

Sep 25, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER. Response to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 10/8/2026; Reply due 10/13/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/25/2026. 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: 09/25/2026)

Sep 25, 2026

Order

#6

Oct 07, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL ROSE, DAVID J. VENTURELLA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Ecker, Nathaniel) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#7

Oct 13, 2026

REPLY BRIEF re 6 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by MAXIMINO CONTRERAS. (Gibbs, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

#8

Oct 26, 2026

ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In the 1 Petition, Petitioner, a noncitizen and native of El Salvador 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, 1516, 19. Respondents, in turn, argue that the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to fully exhaust available administrative remedies. ECF No. 6 at 2-4. 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. 6 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 as of yet actually requested an individualized bond hearing. See ECF Nos. 1 at 13; 6-1 at 2. 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. Petitioner contends that his administrative opportunity for a bond hearing is "ephemeral" because "Respondents may transfer detainees without notice at their sole discretion" to another district beyond this Court's jurisdiction. ECF No. 7 at 4. But given that the United States has asserted in court that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), ECF No. 6 at 2, as confirmed in a custody determination, ECF No. 6-1 at 2, that would remain the basis of Petitioner's detention even after transfer to some other district. 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 10/26/2026. 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: 10/26/2026)

#9

Oct 26, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT entered consistent with the above order (ECF No. 8). Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/26/2026. 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: 10/26/2026)

Oct 26, 2026

Order

Oct 26, 2026

Judgment