Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Tymann Davis x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Personal Property: Other | Pennsylvania Eastern
Response in Opposition to Motion
RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Hooman Noorchashm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A, # 2 Certificate of Service Cert Service, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(FINEMAN, SAMUEL)
Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee | Massachusetts
Order
District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Eduardo Rocha Siqueira. Petitioner Eduardo Rocha Siqueira ("Petitioner"), an immigration detainee, has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the government's failure to provide him with a subsequent bond redetermination hearing based on changed circumstances. The government takes issue with Petitioner requesting this relief via habeas corpus but does not dispute that Petitioner is entitled to a subsequent bond redetermination hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e). Starting on August 18, 2026, Petitioner has attempted multiple times to request a hearing pursuant to § 1003.19(e), which simply requires that the request "be made in writing." These requests have repeatedly been denied for reasons that the government fails to adequately explain and that appear to be unreasonable. Although the immigration court may enforce procedural filing rules, the Court finds in this case that the government is in violation of federal law by not timely scheduling a subsequent bond redetermination hearing for Petitioner, which he has been repeatedly requesting for over a month. Cf. Belen Villanueva v. Warden, Mesa Verde Det. Ctr., No. 26-cv-03806, 2026 WL 2906576, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2026) (ordering the government to provide the petitioner with a hearing under § 1003.19(e)). Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the habeas petition (Dkt. 1 ) and ORDERS the government to provide Petitioner with a subsequent bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e), in which the immigration judges shall consider whether there are materially changed circumstances and, if so, whether release on bond is warranted, within seven business days of the date of this order. No later than fourteen days from the date of this order, the government shall file a status report confirming that Petitioner has received such a hearing and stating the outcome of the hearing.(BEL)
Petitioner Eduardo Rocha Siqueira ("Petitioner"), an immigration detainee, has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the government's failure to provide him with a subsequent bond redetermination hearing based on changed circumstances. The government takes issue with Petitioner requesting this relief via habeas corpus but does not dispute that Petitioner is entitled to a subsequent bond redetermination hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e).
Starting on August 18, 2026, Petitioner has attempted multiple times to request a hearing pursuant to § 1003.19(e), which simply requires that the request "be made in writing." These requests have repeatedly been denied for reasons that the government fails to adequately explain and that appear to be unreasonable. Although the immigration court may enforce procedural filing rules, the Court finds in this case that the government is in violation of federal law by not timely scheduling a subsequent bond redetermination hearing for Petitioner, which he has been repeatedly requesting for over a month. Cf. Belen Villanueva v. Warden, Mesa Verde Det. Ctr., No. 26-cv-03806, 2026 WL 2906576, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2026) (ordering the government to provide the petitioner with a hearing under § 1003.19(e)).
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the habeas petition (Dkt. 1 ) and ORDERS the government to provide Petitioner with a subsequent bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e), in which the immigration judges shall consider whether there are materially changed circumstances and, if so, whether release on bond is warranted, within seven business days of the date of this order. No later than fourteen days from the date of this order, the government shall file a status report confirming that Petitioner has received such a hearing and stating the outcome of the hearing.(BEL)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.