District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14559

#1

Oct 07, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-12094385 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Hipolito Raul Quinom Coguox. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Hurley, Brian) Modified on 10/7/2026 to delete duplicate docket text (CEH). (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#2

Oct 07, 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 Donald L. Cabell. (NMC) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#3

Oct 07, 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: 10/07/2026)

#4

Oct 07, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITIONAND 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 Friday, October 9, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 14, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#5

Oct 07, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition mailed to Duty AUSA Steven Sharobem and mailed to all respondents on 10/7/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

Oct 07, 2026

Copy Mailed

Oct 07, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Oct 08, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica McMahon on behalf of Todd Blanche, Department of Homeland Security, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella, David Wesling (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

#7

Oct 08, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Todd Blanche, Department of Homeland Security, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

#8

Oct 08, 2026

MOTION to Vacate 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition,, by Todd Blanche, Department of Homeland Security, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella, David Wesling.(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

#9

Oct 08, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause on or before Thursday, October 15, 2026, for why the petition should not be denied in light of Respondents' filing 7 . (MBM) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

Oct 08, 2026

Order

#10

Oct 15, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#11

Oct 19, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents submit that Petitioner was previously removed pursuant to a final order of removal entered in 1996 and is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 because his removal order was reinstated on October 6, 2026. Dkt. 7 at 1–2.Respondent bears the burden “to produce tangible evidence to demonstrate that [petitioner] is subject to a reinstated order of removal.” Gonzalez Lopez v. Wesling, 828 F. Supp. 3d 284, 292 (D.R.I. 2026) (granting habeas petition because “[t]he Government has failed to produce any tangible evidence” including the “Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order”). Here, Respondents have produced evidence of the final order of removal issued against petitioner, Dkt. 7 -1, and the decision to reinstate that order, Dkt 7 -2. The “inconsistencies in the chronology” of the reinstatement order and associated removal warrant identified by Petitioner, Dkt. 10 at 2, do not prevent the record from “demonstrat[ing] that this order was in fact issued and relates to Petitioner,” Cordeiro Da Silva v. Moniz, 26-cv-14089, Dkt. 12 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2026).This Court also cannot consider Petitioner’s challenges pertaining to “whether Petitioner received the notice required under the law governing his [original removal] proceedings.” Dkt. 10 at 2. “Claims of insufficient service... plainly ‘arise from’ the removal process,” and this Court does not have jurisdiction over such claims. Gicharu v. Carr, 983 F.3d 13, 16–17 (1st Cir. 2020); see United States v. Castillo-Martinez, 16 F.4th 906, 914 n.4 (1st Cir. 2021) (“the reinstated order ‘is not subject to being reopened or reviewed,’ and the noncitizen ‘is not eligible and may not apply for any relief’ from the order.” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)). Petitioner claims to “seek release from present custody or a bond hearing, rather than an order reopening the deportation proceedings,” Dkt. 10 at 3, but Petitioner’s grounds for challenging his detention are deficiencies “inextricably intertwined” with his prior removal process, Gonzalez Lopez, 828 F. Supp. 3d at 291 (quoting Cruz v. Bondi, 2025 WL 3295485, at *4-5 (D.R.I. Nov. 26, 2025)). Accordingly, the 1 Petition is DENIED.(MBM) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

#12

Oct 19, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT... In accordance with this Court’s Order (ECF #11) issued on October 19, 2026, denying the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED: Judgment for the Respondents against the Petitioner. (MBM) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

Oct 19, 2026

Order