Orellana Serrano v. McDonald et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
GALO MARCELO ORELLANA SERRANO,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-13395-IT
v. 	*
*
JOSEPH D. MCDONALD, JR., Facility Head of
the Plymouth County Correctional Facility;
ANDREW ACKLEY, Warden of FCI Berlin;
PATRICIA HYDE, Acting Field Office Director;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SIRCE
OWEN, Acting Director, Executive Office of
Immigration Review; PAMELA BONDI, U.S.
Attorney General; KRISTI L. NOEM, U.S.
Secretary of Homeland Security,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
November 26, 2025
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Galo Marcelo Orellana Serrano is an Ecuadorian national residing in the
United States since 2019. Pet. ¶ 1 [Doc. No. 1]; Resp’ts’ Opp’n 4 [Doc. 6]. Petitioner was
arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on November 12, 2025. Pet.
¶ 1, 20 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner alleges, and Respondents do not contest, that, Petitioner is
“currently detained at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts.”
Pet. ¶ 1 [Doc. No. 1]; Resp’ts’ Opp’n 2 [Doc. No. 6].
On November 13, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No.
1] with this court. Petitioner contends that he “is subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a)” and that “under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), Petitioner must, upon his request, receive
a custody redetermination hearing[.]” Id. ¶¶ 28–29. “Petitioner requests such a bond hearing.”
Case 1:25-cv-13395-IT Document 8 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Id. ¶ 30. Petitioner alleges that Respondents’ denial of either a bond or individualized hearing
constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action, in violation of the Administrative Procedure
Act, and a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶ 3.
Respondents move to dismiss because, among other reasons, Petitioner named Joseph D.
McDonald, Jr., the Sheriff of Plymouth County, Massachusetts, and Andrew Ackley, the Warden
of the Federal Correctional Insitution in Berlin, New Hampshire, rather than Antone Moniz, the
Superintendant of the Plymouth County Correctional Facility and Petitioner’s immediate
custodian. See Resp’ts’ Opp. 2–3 [Doc. No. 6]. Respondents also move to dismiss on the basis
that, while they agree that Petitioner was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled
to a bond hearing, he has declined to request such a hearing in immigration court, thereby failing
to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 6–8 [Doc. No. 6]. Petitioner did not file a reply, as
permitted under the court’s Order entered on November 13, 2025, upon the filing of the Petition.
See Order Concerning Service of Pet. and Stay of Transfer or Removal ¶ 2 [Doc. No. 3].
Where, based on the papers presently before the court, Respondents do not dispute that
Petitioner’s detention is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and where Petitioner has not sought a
bond hearing before the immigration court, the court agrees that Petitioner must exhaust his
administrative remedies before requesting relief here. See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140,
144 (1992). The court finds Petitioner’s argument that the immigration court’s decision to grant
him a bond hearing is “predetermined” unavailing, given the undisputed applicability of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). Pet. ¶ 32 [Doc. No. 1]; see Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (B.I.A 2025)
(denying bond hearing where government alleged detainment pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225).
On November 25, 2025, Petitioner filed a Notice Regarding Class-Wide Declaratory
Relief and Request for Immediate Habeas Relief [Doc. No. 7] requesting that the court grant his
Case 1:25-cv-13395-IT Document 8 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 3

3
habeas petition forthwith or, in the alternative, immediately provide a § 1226(a) bond hearing,
based on two orders entered in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal.
Nov. 25, 2025). But although the Central District of California certified a class, that court did not
order the relief Petitioner requests here. Instead, after appointing class counsel, the Central
District of California directed the parties “to submit a Joint Status Report on January 9, 2026,
which shall include how the parties will proceed with this matter.” Notice, Ex. 2, at 15 [Doc. No.
7-2] (submitting as an exhibit the Order Granting Class Certification in Maldonado Bautista v.
Santacruz, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025)). Accordingly, this court does not find
that the Central District of California’s Order Granting Class Certification dictates the
proceedings here.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED with leave to amend. If,
after requesting a bond hearing from an immigration judge, no hearing under § 1226(a) is
granted within one week of such request, Orellana Serrano may file an Amended Petition. In that
event, Petitioner should name his immediate custodian and detail the exhaustion of his
administrative remedies, so as to avoid any future ambiguity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 26, 2025 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13395-IT Document 8 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 3