Pereira v. Moniz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
RENATO PEREIRA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	26-10008-FDS
)
ANTONE MONIZ, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
_______________________________________)
ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT OF PETITION
SAYLOR, J.
On January 2, 2026, petitioner filed, through counsel, a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. In their response, respondents identified certain deficiencies in the petition, most notably
the absence of plausible factual allegations sufficient to support a claim for relief. (See Dkt. No.
2 at 4-5).
It is unclear whether the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to a petition brought
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Cf. Vieira v. Moniz, 2020 WL 488552, at *1 n.1 (D. Mass. Jan. 30,
2020). Nonetheless, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which “govern the
procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
1, clearly applies in this matter. Rule 8 requires that a pleading contain, at a minimum, “a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction”; “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”; and “a demand for the relief sought.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
The petition fails to meet that standard. It includes only threadbare recitals that petitioner
“entered the United States around April 2021 in Arizona”; that he was “recently apprehended by
Case 1:26-cv-10008-FDS Document 10 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
immigration officials”; and that he was “unlawfully detained” at that time. (Pet. ¶¶ 1-2). It also
includes allegations that “Petitioner expects that Respondents will declare he is detained pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1225 as an applicant for admission and impose mandatory detention,” and that
“Petitioner believes he is eligible for bond based on 8 U.S.C. § 1226,” but does not include
plausible factual allegations to support that legal conclusion. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17). Furthermore, the
claim for relief is based only on an alleged violation of petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due-
process right, not on any statutory violation. (Id. ¶ 18).
To be sure, as petitioner suggests, some information relevant to his claim may be
uniquely in the possession of respondents, and a failure to include specific allegations concerning
that information is not a basis on which to deny a petition. (Dkt. No. 8 at 3). But in its current
form, the petition does not include sufficient factual allegations to allow this court to issue a writ
of habeas corpus.
For those reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be DENIED, effective
February 4, 2026, unless petitioner files an amended petition by that date. Such an amended
petition shall clearly allege, at a minimum: (1) petitioner’s citizenship and nationality; (2) the
circumstances of his entry into the United States in April 2021, including whether it occurred at a
port of entry, whether he was encountered by immigration officials, and any information or
documentation he received concerning the terms on which he was released into the United
States; (3) whether petitioner has remained in the United States continuously since his entry in
April 2021; and (4) a prayer for relief that clarifies whether petitioner claims that the writ should
issue based on a violation of his Fifth Amendment due-process rights, as the original petition
suggests, or whether he also alleges a statutory violation as a basis for issuing the writ.
Case 1:26-cv-10008-FDS Document 10 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Any such amended petition shall be filed within 14 days (that is, by February 4, 2026).
Failure to do so will result in the denial of the petition.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: January 21, 2026 	United States District Court Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10008-FDS Document 10 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3