District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14474

#1

Oct 01, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-12079371 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Youssouf Traore. (Attachments: # 1 category sheet, # 2 civil cover sheet)(Lagana, Stephen) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#2

Oct 01, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Patti B. Saris 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 Donald L. Cabell. (MAC) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#3

Oct 01, 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). (CGK) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#4

Oct 01, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. ORDER Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than October 6, 2026. (CGK) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#5

Oct 01, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 2241 Service Order mailed to Respondents and a courtesy copy emailed to Duty AUSA on 10/1/2026.(CGK) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Oct 01, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Oct 01, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Oct 02, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin Tolkoff on behalf of Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

#7

Oct 06, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by David Venturella, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit NTA, # 2 Exhibit Windsor Police Report)(Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

#8

Oct 07, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 7 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241 filed by David Wesling, David Venturella "Petitioner shall file a reply brief addressing the government's response (Dkt. 7 ) no later than October 14, 2026." (CGK) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

Oct 07, 2026

Order

#9

Oct 15, 2026

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Youssouf Traore. (Lagana, Stephen) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#10

Oct 15, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) filed by Youssouf Traore. Petitioner Youssouf Traore ("Petitioner") has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his immigration detention without a bond hearing. The government contends that Petitioner's detention is mandatory under the Laken Riley Act because Petitioner was "arrested for... larceny." 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E)(ii). Petitioner does not dispute that his arrest for larceny in the fourth degree under Connecticut law, for which a criminal charge remains pending, falls within the scope of the statute. Instead, he argues that his mandatory detention under the Laken Riley Act based solely on an arrest and charge rather than a conviction violates his due process rights. Many courts, including within this district, have held that due process does not permit mandatory detention without a bond hearing based on a mere arrest or charge for shoplifting, larceny, or theft. See, e.g., Ramirez Cardenas v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-14492, Dkt. 8 (D. Mass. Oct. 8, 2026); Rodriguez Perez v. Warden of Orange Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 26-cv-5013, 2026 WL 2676583, at *46 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 11, 2026); Doe v. Moniz, 800 F. Supp. 3d 203, 212, 21617 (D. Mass. 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 25-2095, 2025 WL 4722778 (1st Cir. Nov. 25, 2025). But see Garcia Vasquez v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-13371, Dkt. 14 (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025) (declining to follow Doe and finding constitutional two months of mandatory detention based on an arrest for shoplifting). "Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), sets out a three-part test that courts have used to assess due process challenges by individuals detained under Section 1226 and seeking a bond hearing." Doe, 800 F. Supp. 3d at 216; see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2021). First, the private interest at stake is substantial, as "[f]reedom from imprisonment... lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's liberty is significant. Petitioner's detention is based on a mere arrest and charge for a nonviolent misdemeanor larceny offense, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-125(b), and the underlying conduct bears no substantial relationship to dangerousness or flight risk. See Doe, 800 F. Supp. 3d at 216-17. The third factor, "which ultimately entails an assessment of the 'public interest,'" "is uncertain at best" for the government. Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 32-33 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347). The government has a legitimate interest in ensuring a noncitizen's appearance at removal proceedings and protecting the community from noncitizens who present a danger. See Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 32. But Petitioner's nonviolent misdemeanor larceny arrest does not materially threaten either of these interests, the government has submitted no other evidence to show Petitioner is a danger or flight risk, and the cost of providing a bond hearing is minimal. In sum, the Mathews factors weigh in Petitioner's favor, and his mandatory detention without a bond hearing under the Laken Riley Act violates due process. Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the habeas petition (Dkt. 1 ) and ORDERS that the government release Petitioner unless he is provided with a bond hearing that complies with the standards outlined in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021), within seven business days of the date of this order. No later than fourteen days from the date of this order, the government shall file a status report confirming that Petitioner has received a bond hearing (or has been released in lieu of a bond hearing) and stating the outcome of the bond hearing.(CGK) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#11

Oct 15, 2026

SET DEADLINES as to: STATUS REPORT due by 10/29/2026.(CGK) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

Oct 15, 2026

Order

#12

Oct 29, 2026

Status Report

#13

Nov 05, 2026

Judgment