Caballero Gutierrez v. Wesling et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JUANA PATRICIA CABALLERO
GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-13996-IT
v. 	*
*
DAVID WESLING, Acting Field Office
Director, et al.,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
January 14, 2026
TALWANI, D.J.
On December 29, 2025, Petitioner Juana Patricia Caballero Gutierrez filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] with this court. Petitioner states that she is a Nicaraguan
national who entered the United States on or about December 12, 2022. Pet. ¶ 1 [Doc. No. 1].
Petitioner alleges that on December 29, 2025, federal immigration officials arrested her during a
check-in with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Id. ¶ 22. In her Petition,
Petitioner also alleges that she was scheduled to undergo a required surgery for her gallbladder
on March 4, 2026. Id. ¶ 23. Respondents filed their Response [Doc. No. 5] on December 30,
2025.
On January 1, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 7].
The motion and attached declaration by Petitioner’s counsel state that on December 30, 2025,
while Petitioner was detained, she began to experience severe pain and required hospitalization.
Mot. for Prelim. Injunction 1 [Doc. No. 7]; VanScoyoc Decl. ¶ 8 [Doc. No. 7-1]. Petitioner
alleges that while hospitalized she has been “kept shackled/cuffed at the wrists and ankles by
Case 1:25-cv-13996-IT Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
ICE.” VanScoyoc Decl. ¶ 8 [Doc. No. 7-1]. Petitioner’s counsel communicated with Petitioner
and a recovery room nurse by phone on December 31, 2025, and was informed that Petitioner
had emergency surgery to remove her gallbladder. Id. ¶ 9. The nurse further explained to
Petitioner’s counsel that Petitioner would potentially be ready for discharge on January 1, 2026.
Id. On January 1, 2026, Petitioner’s counsel called the hospital to speak with Petitioner. Id. ¶ 10.
An individual identifying himself as an officer answered the phone and did not allow counsel to
speak with her. Id.
On January 2, 2026, Respondents filed a Notice of Intent to Transfer [Doc. No. 9]
informing the court that “Respondents intend to transfer Petitioner to the Laredo Processing
Center (LPC) – CoreCivic, 4702 E. Saunders Ave., Laredo, TX 78041[.]” Notice of Intent to
Transfer 1 [Doc. No. 9]. The Notice explained that transfer was necessary because “Petitioner is
currently being housed in a temporary holding facility not designed for long term detention,
whereas bed space is currently available at another facility more appropriate for her care.” Id. at
2. The notice did not mention Petitioner’s medical emergency.
The court entered an electronic order the same day stating:
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED as
follows. 	In 	light 	of 	Petitioner’s 	alleged 	hospitalization 	and 	emergency
surgery, see VanScoyoc Decl. [¶¶ 8, 9] [Doc. No. 7-1], and where Petitioner’s
counsel has not been allowed to contact Petitioner since January 1, 2026, see id. 10,
Respondents are ordered to release Petitioner from custody before 6:00 p.m. today,
January 2, 2026. If Respondents seek to re-detain Petitioner, they shall first notice
and hold a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Petitioner is ordered to
attend any such bond hearing. Respondents are further ORDERED to file a status
report within 10 days of this Order notifying the court whether a bond hearing was
sought, noticed, and held, and if so, whether Petitioner was granted bond or if
Petitioner’s request for bond was denied. Any decision by the immigration judge to
re-detain Petitioner following a bond hearing shall set forth the reasons for the
continued detention. Memorandum to follow.
Electronic Order [Doc. No. 10]. This Memorandum sets forth the grounds for the Electronic
Order [Doc. No. 10].
Case 1:25-cv-13996-IT Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
In her Petition [Doc. No. 1], Petitioner contends that she “is currently being detained
without access to a hearing to determine whether she is a danger or flight risk, in violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the implementing regulations.” Pet. ¶ 28 [Doc. No. 1].
Respondents meanwhile concede that “the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to
those recently addressed by this Court in . . . Doe v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12094-IT, __ F. Supp. 3d
__, 2025 WL 2576819 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2025), and [Elias] Escobar v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12620-
IT, 2025 WL 2823324 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025).” Respondents’ Resp. 1 [Doc. No. 5].
Respondents consequently acknowledge that, “[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in
Doe v. Moniz and [Elias] Escobar v. Hyde, it would reach the same result here.” Id.
Nothing in the record indicates that Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather
than 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The court finds the reasoning in Doe remains correct and that Petitioner’s
detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in
Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), is unpersuasive and does not change
the analysis. See Elias Escobar, 2025 WL 2823324, at *3 (D. Mass. Oct. 20, 2025) (citing cases
reaching the same conclusion).
Further, Respondents did not respond to Petitioner’s claims regarding her medical
emergency and subsequent surgery in either their Response [Doc. No. 5] or in their Notice of
Intent to Transfer [Doc. No. 9]. The Notice of Intent to Transfer also did not address whether
Petitioner is receiving adequate care as she recovers from surgery while in custody. Accordingly,
the court entered the Electronic Order [Doc. No. 10] set forth above.
January 14, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13996-IT Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3