District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-14017

#1

Dec 31, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11447447 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Gabriela Da Silva Lopes. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Anderson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/31/2025)

#2

Dec 31, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (LBO) (Entered: 12/31/2025)

#3

Dec 31, 2025

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Entered: 12/31/2025)

#4

Dec 31, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (FGD) (Entered: 12/31/2025)

#5

Dec 31, 2025

Copy re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), sent to Duty AUSA via email and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 12/31/25. (FGD) (Entered: 12/31/2025)

Dec 31, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

Dec 31, 2025

Copy Mailed

#6

Jan 02, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Nicole M. O'Connor on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Patricia H. Hyde, Todd M Lyons, Kristi L. Noem (O'Connor, Nicole) (Entered: 01/02/2026)

#7

Jan 02, 2026

NOTICE by Pamela Bondi, Patricia H. Hyde, Todd M Lyons, Kristi L. Noem re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition of Intent to Transfer Petitioner (O'Connor, Nicole) (Entered: 01/02/2026)

#8

Jan 02, 2026

Response by Pamela Bondi, Patricia H. Hyde, Todd M Lyons, Kristi L. Noem to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), . (O'Connor, Nicole) (Entered: 01/02/2026)

#9

Jan 02, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: After reviewing the Petition and the response from Respondents, the Court hereby ORDERS the immediate release of Petitioner WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a bond hearing held within seven days before an immigration judge provided that at any such hearing she is not detained pursuant to section 1225, that the bond hearing is pursuant to section 1226, that the burdens of proof are as resolved by the First Circuit in Lara-Hernandez, and that no respondent retaliates against Petitioner for filing this Petition. Respondents shall file a status report no later than January 16, 2026 reporting the status of any further bond proceedings. Any request for fees under the EAJA shall be filed within thirty days. The Court renders this decision in light of the record before the Court, the prior decisions of this Court, the government’s concession that this case is similar to prior cases resolved by this Court and the absence of an appropriate facility to detain women in Massachusetts. Immediate release means that Petitioner shall be released before the end of the business day today January 2, 2026.(MAC) (Entered: 01/02/2026)

Jan 02, 2026

Order

#11

Jan 09, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Pamela Bondi, Patricia H. Hyde, Todd M Lyons, Kristi L. Noem. (O'Connor, Nicole) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#12

Jan 12, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 11 STATUS REPORT. Further status three days after the bond hearing. (FGD) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

Jan 12, 2026

Order

#13

Jan 15, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Pamela Bondi, Patricia H. Hyde, Todd M Lyons, Kristi L. Noem. (O'Connor, Nicole) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#14

Jan 30, 2026

MOTION for Attorney Fees by Gabriela Da Silva Lopes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Anderson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#15

Feb 13, 2026

Opposition re 14 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Pamela Bondi, Patricia H. Hyde, Todd M Lyons, Kristi L. Noem. (O'Connor, Nicole) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#16

Feb 18, 2026

REPLY to Response to 14 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Gabriela Da Silva Lopes. (Anderson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#17

Jun 05, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES (DOC. NO. 14 ). (FGD) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

#18

Jun 05, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT. (FGD) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

#19

Aug 07, 2026

MOTION for Attorney Fees by Gabriela Da Silva Lopes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Anderson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#20

Aug 24, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 19 MOTION for Attorney Fees .The petitioner moved for attorney's fees on August 7, 2026. Doc. No. 19 . The deadline for any opposition passed fourteen days later without any submission by the respondents. The Court will allow the motion as unopposed on September 4, 2026, unless the respondents file an objection to the petitioner's request before that date.(FGD) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

Aug 24, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

Sep 04, 2026

Order on Motion for Attorney Fees

#22

Sep 09, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica McMahon on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Kristi L. Noem (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#23

Sep 10, 2026

MOTION for Reconsideration re 21 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,,, by Pamela Bondi, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Kristi L. Noem.(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#24

Sep 11, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 23 MOTION for Reconsideration re 21 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. On September 4, 2026, the Court allowed the petitioner’s renewed motion for a fee award under the EAJA. Doc. No. 21. The respondents filed no opposition to the motion during the two weeks after its filing, nor did they do so during the two additional weeks the Court provided them via a separate electronic order (an extension of time the respondents had not requested). Doc. No. 21. The respondents now ask the Court to reconsider its decision. Doc. No. 23. They identify no manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence in support of the request. Instead, they suggest the Court misunderstood ICE’s legal position when it treated the petitioner’s renewed motion as unopposed, because ICE “does in fact oppose awarding the requested EAJA fees.” Id. at 2. ICE takes no responsibility for its failure to timely articulate its objections in the first instance or for its failure to express them in response to the Court’s order sua sponte extending the deadline for opposing the motion. Instead, it blames others. First, ICE blames the petitioner, who did not certify conferral as this District’s Local Rules generally require before filing the renewed motion. But conferral under Local Rule 7.1 is not a mechanism aimed at providing notice to the nonmoving party. The electronic filing itself accomplishes that, per Local Rule 5.4(c). It is a rule designed to encourage the narrowing of disputes before presenting them to the Court for resolution. Though the Court agrees that the petitioner should have conferred, her failure to do so here did not warrant denial of her motion nor does it justify reconsideration. ICE opposed the petitioner’s first motion for fees, its pending motion makes plain that it objects to her renewed request for fees, and nothing before the Court suggests that conferral would have narrowed the issues. It bears noting that, though the petitioner likewise did not confer before filing her original motion for fees, ICE did not object to an award on that basis then nor did the absence of conferral prevent the filing of a timely opposition to that motion.Next, ICE blames its lawyers, citing the departure of the Assistant United States Attorney who had appeared in this case on the respondents’ behalf and the “immense amount of habeas petitions” the United States Attorney’s Office is responsible for handling. Doc. No. 23 at 2-3. But electronic notices of both relevant filings—the renewed motion and the Court’s order extending the opposition deadline—were not sent only to a single AUSA. They were also sent to two general email addresses associated with and presumably monitored by ICE’s counsel (CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, and USAMA.ECF@usdoj.gov), as well as to a particular Legal Administrative Specialist in the Defensive Litigation Unit of the USAO. Oversights by ICE and its lawyers in managing the transition of cases when an attorney departs, monitoring court filings in cases involving ICE, and contending with the volume of litigation triggered by actions within ICE’s control simply are not reasons for reconsideration. This is especially so where ICE has not meaningfully acknowledged its responsibility for failing to make a timely filing, nor submitted with the pending motion a proposed opposition memorandum. The substantive issues presented by the fee request are straightforward matters that ICE has previously addressed in this very case and numerous others. Instead of including those arguments when it prepared the motion for reconsideration, ICE eschewed presenting any of its challenges to the underlying motion and instead sought an additional thirty days to prepare and submit an opposition brief.For the foregoing reasons, on this record, the motion to reconsider (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED. Had ICE simply acknowledged in a single sentence that it missed the deadlines due to oversight despite notice, invoked the principle that courts generally prefer to resolve motions on substantive rather than procedural grounds, and submitted with the request its substantive arguments, the Court likely would have considered those arguments. (SED) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

Sep 11, 2026

Order on Motion for Reconsideration