Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01980

#1

Oct 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number 20002134), filed by MARTIN ARNALDO CALERO HERNANDEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt) (ert) (Entered: 10/14/2026)

#2

Oct 13, 2026

EXHIBITS in Support of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by MARTIN ARNALDO CALERO HERNANDEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Envelope) (ert) (Entered: 10/14/2026)

#3

Oct 13, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by MARTIN ARNALDO CALERO HERNANDEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ert) (Entered: 10/14/2026)

#4

Oct 13, 2026

Proposed Order re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by MARTIN ARNALDO CALERO HERNANDEZ. (ert) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

Oct 14, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand presiding. (ert)

#5

Oct 15, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/15/2026. (tmc) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#6

Oct 15, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Raymond Stelzer on behalf of WARDEN OF MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING CENTER. (Stelzer, Raymond) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#7

Oct 16, 2026

ORDER DENYING 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by MARTIN ARNALDO CALERO HERNANDEZ. In his 3 Motion, Petitioner seeks an order enjoining Respondents from removing him from the United States and from moving him outside the Western District of Pennsylvania pending adjudication of the 1 Petition. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), the Court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party only if (1) "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition" and (2) "the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Further, pursuant to Section III.C of the undersigned's Practices and Procedures (available at: https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/Wiegand_Practices_Procedures_2024.pdf), "[c]onsistent with Rule 65, the Court will not issue a temporary restraining order: (1) when the opposing party has been served; (2) when the motion provides no certification indicating that prompt service cannot be accomplished; or (3) when the motion is unaccompanied by an affidavit or verified complaint consistent with Rule 65(b)(1)(A)." Here, Petitioner has not provided an affidavit or verified complaint offering specific facts suggesting his removal from the United States or his transfer outside of this district is imminent. Thus, he has not shown a likelihood of immediate, irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO. See Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017) (movant must show "that it is more likely than not to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief"); Camacho Lopez v. Lowe, 452 F. Supp. 3d 150, 163 (M.D. Pa. 2020) ("Mere risk of injury is not enough. Rather, the moving party must establish that the claimed harm is imminent and probable.") (citing Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 1997)). Rather, any risk of irreparable harm is speculative. Petitioner has also failed to provide any certification regarding notice or the reasons why notice should not be required. Furthermore, Congress has vested the Secretary of Homeland Security and his or her delegates, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with the authority to detain aliens pending a decision on their removal proceedings, and with the discretion to set the place of detention. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(2), (g)(1), 1226(a), (c)(1); Sinclair v. Att'y Gen., 198 F. App'x 218, 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Within DHS' discretion is the authority to transfer aliens from one detention center to another. Calla-Collado v. Att'y Gen., 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011). Reading § 1231(g)(1) together with Congress' limitations in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) on federal district courts' jurisdiction to review discretionary actions by DHS, federal district courts have concluded that they lack jurisdiction to review DHS' decisions under § 1231. See, e.g., Jane v. Rodriguez, No. 20-5922, 2020 WL 10140953, *1-2 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020) (citing cases). Consistent with this authority, this Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to enjoin Petitioner's transfer outside of this district. Thus, even if Petitioner set forth specific facts showing that his transfer outside of this district was imminent--which he does not--this Court would still be unable to enjoin Petitioner's transfer outside of this district. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/16/2026. 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: 10/16/2026)

Oct 16, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#8

Oct 27, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER. Response to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 11/16/2026; Reply due 11/24/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/27/2026. 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: 10/27/2026)

Oct 27, 2026

Order