District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14716

#1

Oct 16, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Fee status: IFP granted., filed by Carlos Zecena Payes. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Song, Yong Ho) (Entered: 10/16/2026)

#2

Oct 16, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (MDD) (Entered: 10/16/2026)

#3

Oct 19, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns 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: 10/19/2026)

#4

Oct 19, 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). (JAM) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

#5

Oct 19, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. (JAM) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

#6

Oct 19, 2026

Copy re 5 Order, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) mailed to David Wesling, David Venturella, Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche on 10/19/2026. (JAM) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

#7

Oct 19, 2026

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY PAYMENT OF FEES by Petitioner Carlos Zecena Payes. Filing fee $ 5, receipt number AMADC-12119306. Payment Type : HABEAS CORPUS. (Song, Yong Ho) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

Oct 19, 2026

Copy Mailed

Oct 19, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#8

Oct 23, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica McMahon on behalf of Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 10/23/2026)

#9

Oct 24, 2026

AMENDED COMPLAINT for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling, Todd Blanche, filed by Carlos Zecena Payes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Song, Yong Ho) (Entered: 10/24/2026)

#10

Oct 26, 2026

Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to October 27, 2026 to File Response/Reply as to 9 Amended Complaint, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling.(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 10/26/2026)

#11

Oct 26, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 10/26/2026)

#12

Oct 26, 2026

NOTICE by Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling re 5 Order re: Intent to Transfer to Effectuate Removal (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 10/26/2026)

#13

Oct 27, 2026

MOTION for Leave to File a Reply by Carlos Zecena Payes.(Song, Yong Ho) (Entered: 10/27/2026)

#14

Oct 27, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (MZ) (Entered: 10/27/2026)

#15

Oct 27, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 13 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. (MZ) (Entered: 10/27/2026)

#16

Oct 27, 2026

Response by Carlos Zecena Payes to 12 Notice (Other), 11 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Song, Yong Ho) (Entered: 10/27/2026)

Oct 27, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Oct 27, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

#17

Oct 28, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 16 Response filed by Carlos Zecena Payes, 12 Notice (Other) filed by Markwayne Mullin, David Wesling, David Venturella, and Todd Blanche. While the court Is not lacking in sympathy for the petitioner's plea for release from detention, the court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief he requests. Under section 242(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a District Court has no jurisdiction to hear a claim arising from the execution of a removal order. As sections 242(a)(5) and (b) (9) of the INA make clear, any such jurisdiction is vested in the Court of Appeals. The opportunity to challenge a removal order in the Immigration Court and, if applicable, in the Court of Appeals, is the due process that the Fifth Amendment guarantees to petitioner and others similarly situated. Despite the nine-year abeyance of execution in petitioner's case since the entry of his final order of removal, the order itself has no self-executing expiration date (nor is one established by law or by statute), nor is ICE required to obtain a judicial (as opposed to internal administrative) warrant before initiating its execution. Further, there is no anticipation of any insurmountable obstacle to petitioner's foreseeable removal as the Court of Appeals noted in a similar case, G.P., Petitioner v. Garland, 103 F.4th 898 (1st Cir 2024).Finally, this court is not inclined to revisit and reverse its decision in Rodriguez-Guardado v. Smith, 272 F.Supp.3d 331 (D. Mass. 2017), as petitioner requests. As the court observed in that decision at footnote 6, a contrary holding would lead to the undesirable result of incentivizing the government to abstain in every case from any favorable exercise of discretion.(MZ) (Entered: 10/28/2026)

#18

Oct 28, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (JAM) (Entered: 10/28/2026)

Oct 28, 2026

Order