District of Connecticut • 3:26-cv-01945

#1

Nov 04, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACTDC-8825056.), filed by Dayana Maricruz Marroquin-Bendezu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(O'Neil-Baker, Erin) Modified on 11/4/2026 to correct party(zh). (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#2

Nov 04, 2026

ORDER re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Dayana Maricruz Marroquin-Bendezu. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/4/26.(jp) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#3

Nov 04, 2026

Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/4/2026.(nk) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#4

Nov 04, 2026

ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/4/2026.(nk) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#5

Nov 04, 2026

Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research: Attorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court. Use of AI without verification of the accuracy of the information it generates like any other shoddy research method from other sources or tools implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the central purpose of which is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus to streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts. Rule 11 applies fully to actions filed by pro se litigants.Therefore, all parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse. See generally Willis v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n et al, No. 3:25-CV-516-BN, 2025 WL 1408897 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2025). Signed by Clerk on 11/4/2026.(nk) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#6

Nov 04, 2026

Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings in this civil action (including presiding over a jury or non-jury trial) and to order the entry of final judgment.(nk) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#7

Nov 04, 2026

ORDER: Counsel for all parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference tomorrow, November 5, 2026, at 3:30 PM. Dial-in information shall follow in a subsequent order. The parties shall confer in advance of the conference and submit a joint letter, no later than November 5, 2026, at 2:00 PM. The joint letter should address the following topics: (1) the current status of any removal proceedings against Petitioner; (2) Petitioner's current location; (3) any ongoing plans to transition Petitioner to another facility or release her; and (4) a proposed briefing schedule for the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/4/2026.(TSJ) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#8

Nov 04, 2026

NOTICE regarding hearing via Telephone: A Telephonic Status Conference scheduled for 11/5/2026 at 3:30 pm. Call-in and Public Access Number: 203-684-6202Conference ID: 269 144 820#Please note: Members of the public are permitted to join this hearing by audio only using the public access number above. This is in accordance with the remote access policies of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which governs the practices of the federal courts. All persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against recording, streaming, and rebroadcasting in any form, of court proceedings. NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/5/2026 at 03:30 PM before Judge Vernon D. Oliver. Joint Status Letter due by 2:00 pm on 11/5/2026 (nk) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

#9

Nov 04, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by John W Larson on behalf of Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Wesling (Larson, John) (Entered: 11/04/2026)

Nov 04, 2026

CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Vernon D. Oliver assigned to the case. If the District Judge issues an Order of Referral to a Magistrate Judge for any matter other than settlement, the matter will be referred to Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson. (zh)

Nov 04, 2026

Calendar Entry AND Notice Regarding Hearing Via Telephone

Nov 04, 2026

Order

Nov 04, 2026

NEW Case Assignment

Nov 04, 2026

Notice re: AI-Assisted Research

#10

Nov 05, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Wesling. (Larson, John) (Entered: 11/05/2026)

#11

Nov 05, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vernon D. Oliver: Status Conference held on 11/5/2026. Total Time: 0 hours and 15 minutes(Court Reporter Melissa Ciancullo.) (TSJ) (Entered: 11/05/2026)

#12

Nov 05, 2026

ORDER: Petitioner Dayana Maricruz Marroquin-Bendezu (“Petitioner”), a citizen of Peru and resident of Hartford, Connecticut, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on November 4, 2026 (the “Petition”), while she was detained at the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration, and Customs Enforcement Field Office in Hartford, Connecticut. See ECF No. 1. Although Petitioner is currently detained in Dover, New Hampshire, counsel for the Government confirmed at the November 5, 2026, status conference that the Petition was filed before Petitioner’s transfer. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. See Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 390 (2d Cir. 2025) (stating that there are “two traditional requirements for a federal court to entertain a habeas petition: that the petition be filed in the district of confinement and that it name the petitioner's immediate custodian.”); see, e.g., Shinwari v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-514 (VDO), 2026 WL 974957 (D. Conn. Apr. 11, 2026). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the Court must “forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The statute further provides that the person to whom the order to show cause is directed shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention within three days, unless good cause warrants additional time. Id. Thereafter, “a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.” Id.In the present case, the Court finds good cause to briefly extend these deadlines, in light of Respondent’s representation at the November 5, 2026, status conference that Petitioner will receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) upon request. Because of this representation, the parties have agreed to postpone the issuance of an order to show cause and the related deadlines while Petitioner pursues his bond hearing in the removal proceedings.In the interim, the Court sets the following deadlines:The parties shall submit a second joint status report by November 23, 2026, with updates on the same information: (1) the status of Petitioner’s bond hearing; (2) the status of Petitioner’s removal proceedings; and (3) Petitioner’s current location and any plans for her transfer.If Petitioner has not been granted a bond hearing by November 23, 2026, Respondent shall, by November 30, 2026, make a filing to show cause why the writ should not be granted, and the Court will set a hearing date.Additionally, counsel for the Government shall immediately notify the Court on the docket if there is a determination not to hold a bond hearing for Petitioner or if the bond hearing is set for a period greater than 21-days after Petitioner's detention. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/5/2026.(TSJ) (Entered: 11/05/2026)

Nov 05, 2026

Order

Nov 06, 2026

Set Deadlines/Hearings