Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR NERI PLIEGO,
Petitioner,
-v-
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as
Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; KENNETH GENALO, in his official
capacity as Field Office Director of Enforcement
and Removal Operations of the New York Office of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as U.S.
Attorney General; and RAUL MALDONADO, Jr.,
in his official capacity as Warden of the
Metropolitan Detention Center;
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
26-CV-719
ORDER GRANTING
PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Hector Neri Pliego is presently detained by Respondents at the
Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York. 	He is a Mexican
citizen who has resided in the United States for approximately 25 years.1 Petitioner
was taken into Respondents’ custody and detained at the Orange County Correctional
Facility on September 27, 2025, before being transferred to his present location on or
1 The parties make differing representations as to how long Petitioner has
resided in the United States. Petitioner avers that he entered the United States “in
or around 1998.” 	Petition ¶ 25. 	Respondents represent their understanding to be
that Petitioner entered “approximately twenty-five years ago.” ECF No. 14-1, ¶¶ 4–
5. Approximately 25 years is thus the minimum amount of time that Petitioner has
resided in the United States.
Case 1:26-cv-00719-NRM Document 15 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
around October 7, 2025.
On February 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
(the “Petition”), ECF No. 1, alleging that his detention violates his constitutional and
statutory rights, and seeking entry of an order directing his immediate release from
detention.
On 	February 9, 2026, 	the 	Court issued a 	Order, 	ECF No. 8, 	directing
Respondents to file, by 12:00 PM on February 10, 2026, a submission (1) providing
certain information about Petitioner and his circumstances, (2) indicating the
statutory provision under which they assert the authority to detain Petitioner, and
(3) addressing whether there is any basis to distinguish the asserted grounds for
detention from the Court’s decision in Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM),
2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025), or from any other prior decisions issued by
the undersigned in this area of law. The Court further directed that, if Respondents
asserted no basis to distinguish this Petition from the Court’s analysis in Hyppolite
or another decision of this Court, the submission could take the form of a letter so
stating, and indicating whether Respondents oppose issuance of the writ, subject to
preservation of Respondents’ arguments for appeal. Finally, the Court’s February 9,
2026 Order directed Respondents, in the event they took the position that this case
is distinguishable from Hyppolite, to respond to the Petition and to show cause as to
why it should not be granted on or before February 12, 2026 at 5:00 PM; to further
affirm that they have provided the Court with all facts material to Petitioner’s claims
and Respondents’ opposition to those claims; and to attach all exhibits related to those
Case 1:26-cv-00719-NRM Document 15 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
facts.
Respondents neither filed a submission by 12:00 PM on February 10, 2026 nor
requested an extension of time to file this submission. Following a docket Order dated
Feb. 10, 2026, Respondents filed a letter, ECF No. 11, in which it requested until
February 12, 2026 to file their initial submission. 	By docket Order dated February
10, 2026, the Court denied this request but granted Respondents until February 11,
2026 to file their initial submission.
In their response filed on February 11, 2026, ECF No. 14, Respondents have
averred that they are presently detaining Petitioner under the mandatory detention
provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). ECF No. 14 at 2. While Respondents take the
position that such detention is lawful, they acknowledge that, in its decision in
Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025),
this 	Court 	previously 	considered 	and 	rejected 	Respondents’ 	claims 	as 	to 	the
application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to persons similarly situated to Mr. Neri Pliego.
ECF No. 14 at 2–4. Respondents incorporate by reference the legal arguments that
they made in their briefing to this Court in Hyppolite, obviating the need for further
briefing as to the dispositive legal issue in this case. Id. at 4.
Petitioner has alleged, and Respondents do not dispute, that Respondents did
not provide him with a pre-detention bond hearing, which this Court found in
Hyppolite is required for persons similarly situated to Petitioner.
Accordingly, as it did in Hyppolite, the Court finds that Petitioner has
established that his detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due
Case 1:26-cv-00719-NRM Document 15 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
process, because Petitioner has lived in the United States for approximately 25 years
and is therefore entitled to an individualized, pre-detention bond hearing under the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Hyppolite v. Noem, 25 CV
4303 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511, at *12–16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025); see also, e.g.,
Artiga v. Genalo, No. 25 CV 5208 (OEM), 2025 WL 2829434, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5,
2025); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 498–99 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025);
Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25 CV 05240 (TMC), 2025 WL 2782499, at *16–26 (W.D.
Wash. Sep. 30, 2025); Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25 CV 06924 (EMC), 2025 WL
2637503, at *6–13 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25 CV 3682,
2025 WL 2802947, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025) (collecting cases). 	Similarly, the
Court finds that Petitioner has established that the mandatory detention provisions
of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) and (b)(2) relied upon by Respondents to justify the legality
of Petitioner’s detention are inapplicable here, because Petitioner has been living
continuously in the United States and is not “seeking admission” under Section 1225.
The Court hereby incorporates by reference its earlier analysis of these issues
in Hyppolite, 2025 WL 2829511, at *6–16. Given that neither the Second Circuit nor
the United States Supreme Court has yet to address this precise question, the Court
adheres to the reasoning of its earlier decision and the near-unanimous conclusion
reached by hundreds of other district courts nationwide who have considered the
issue to date. Cf. Resp., ECF No. 14 at 3 n.3 (citing the decisions of five district courts
within the Second Circuit adopting Respondents’ analysis).
The Court also finds that Petitioner has established that his detention without
Case 1:26-cv-00719-NRM Document 15 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
a pre-deprivation bond hearing violates his right to procedural due process under the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 	See, e.g., Velasco Lopez v.
Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 851 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting that “the most significant liberty
interest” recognized under the Constitution is “the interest in being free from
imprisonment”). The Court has weighed the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319 (1976), which applies when courts in the Second Circuit are called upon to
determine “the adequacy of process in the context of civil immigration confinement.”
Munoz Materano v. Artera, No. 25 CV 6137, 2025 WL 2630826, at *12 (S.D.N.Y., Sep.
12, 2025). 	Having considered (1) the private interest that will be affected by the
official action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the
procedures 	used; 	and 	(3) 	the 	government's 	interest, 	including 	the 	fiscal 	and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail, see
Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, the Court finds that the balance of interests weighs heavily
in Petitioner’s favor, and that granting the writ is an appropriate remedy for the
deprivation of his right to procedural due process.
It is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is GRANTED. 	It is further ORDERED that Respondents must release
Petitioner from custody no later than 8:00 PM on Wednesday, February 11,
2026.
In light of the fact that Petitioner is presently being held at MDC in Brooklyn,
New York, it is further ORDERED that counsel for Respondents shall keep
Case 1:26-cv-00719-NRM Document 15 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Petitioner’s 	counsel 	informed 	regarding 	the 	timing, 	location, 	and 	manner 	of
Petitioner’s release from custody, so that counsel may be present or arrange to have
a family member or other representative present at the time of Petitioner’s release.
Respondents, through counsel, shall file a letter on the docket no later
than 11:00 PM on that same date (Wednesday, February 11, 2026), confirming
that Petitioner has been released from custody, and shall send a courtesy copy of that
letter by electronic mail to morrison_chambers@nyed.uscourts.gov and to Petitioner’s
counsel at the email address listed in the Petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from re-
detaining Petitioner, absent prior authorization of this Court and without notice and
an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing, at which Respondents
will bear the burden of showing that his detention is authorized under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a).
The Court’s earlier order scheduling a hearing for February 17, 2026 is hereby
vacated in light of the Court’s resolution of the merits of the petition. 	Petitioner’s
counsel may submit an application for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act within the time provided by the Local Rules.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2026 	/s/ Nina R. Morrison
Brooklyn, New York 	Nina R. Morrison
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00719-NRM Document 15 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>