District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14676

#1

Oct 15, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Bernard Jean Pierre. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(MBM) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#2

Oct 15, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Bernard Jean Pierre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (MBM) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#3

Oct 15, 2026

MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Bernard Jean Pierre. (MBM) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#4

Oct 15, 2026

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Bernard Jean Pierre. (MBM) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#5

Oct 15, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick 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. (JAM) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#6

Oct 15, 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). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#7

Oct 15, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than October 22, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#8

Oct 15, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to all respondents on 10/15/2026: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 7 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#9

Oct 15, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and denying without prejudice 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioner may renew his motion for counsel after the government has been served and responds to the petition. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#10

Oct 15, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to Bernard Jean Pierre on 10/15/2026: 7 7 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal, 9 Electronic Order and docket sheet. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

Oct 15, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel

Oct 15, 2026

Copy Mailed

Oct 15, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#11

Oct 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#12

Oct 22, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

Oct 23, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Oct 23, 2026

Order Reassigning Case

#15

Oct 29, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On June 1, 2026, Petitioner filed his first habeas petition (“First Petition”). See Pierre v. Moniz, 26-cv-12468. In his First Petition, Petitioner argued his detention was unconstitutionally long and violated the Fifth Amendment, and he requested either release or a bond hearing. See id., [Doc. No. 1 at 6–7]. This Court granted the First Petition and ordered Respondents provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by June 12, 2026. Id., [Doc. No. 12 ]. The immigration court held a bond hearing on June 11, 2026, at which an immigration judge denied bond, finding Petitioner a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. Id., [Doc. No. 13 ]. Petitioner waived his right to appeal this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and did not request further relief from this Court. Id.On October 15, 2026, Petitioner filed his second habeas petition (“Second Petition”), which is the case now before this Court. [Doc. No. 1 ]. In the Second Petition, Petitioner is challenging the revocation of his parole, making arguments under the APA and the Fifth Amendment. [Id.]. Respondents oppose, stating that the Second Petition is duplicative of the First, and it does not raise any new facts that would give rise to a changed circumstance. I agree with Respondents.Because a subsequent bond redetermination “shall be considered only upon a showing that the [noncitizen’s] circumstances have changed materially since the prior bond redetermination,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e), Petitioner’s failure to allege such a change is dispositive. The Second Petition largely matches the First, and without more, this Court cannot offer Petitioner the relief he seeks. The Petition, [Doc. No. 1], is therefore DENIED. (MBM) (Entered: 10/29/2026)

Oct 29, 2026

Order

#16

Nov 02, 2026

Judgment

Nov 02, 2026

Copy Mailed