Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:26-cv-02473-JKM Document6 Filed 10/15/26 Page1of6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDUARDO FABIAN PACHECO Py No. 3:26cv2473
Petitioner
(Judge Munley)

V.

CRAIG A. LOWE, in his official
capacity as Warden of Pike County
Correctional Facility, Lords Valley;
JOHN E. RIFE, in his official capacity :
as Acting Philadelphia Field Office
Director, United States Immigration
& Customs Enforcement; DAVID J.
VENTURELLA, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of ;
Immigration & Customs Enforcement;:
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his OINEla! ?
capacity as Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
TODD BLANCHE, in his official
capacity as Acting Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice,
Respondents

PoP PPP COCO CCC CCPC eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee ee eee eee ee ee
eee eee ee eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee Pee ee eee eee

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner

Eduardo Fabian Pacheco Pinto, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.' (Doc. 1).

1 Federal district courts are authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
where the petitioner is detained “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner filed the instant petition while detained at Pike
County Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1 {| 4). Petitioner asserts that his continued detention
violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at

Case 3:26-cv-02473-JKM Document6 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2of6

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Ecuador in the custody of the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) at Pike County Correctional Facility, in Lords Valley,
Pennsylvania. Id. at 2. His petition asserts that he is detained under a section of
the Immigration and Nationality Act that does not apply to him in a manner that
violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Id. at 6-12. He also argues
DHS’s detention policy is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, in violation of
the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at 13. After review of the record, the
petition will be granted. Pacheco Pinto will be released.

According to the petition, Pacheco Pinto is 35 years old. Id. [1. He
entered the United States around 2021. Id. at 2. On August 26, 2026, Dickson
City, Pennsylvania Police took petitioner into custody after Pike Enforcement and

Removal Operations confirmed that he “is a citizen of Ecuador residing in the

9-13. Thus, the court has habeas jurisdiction over the petition. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 443 (2004).

Case 3:26-cv-02473-JKM Document6 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3of6

United States without lawful status.” (Doc. 3-2 at 2). He has no criminal record.?
He has been in detention without a bond hearing since being detained.*

Respondents acknowledge that Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia

FDC, _—*F.4th __, 2026 WL 2546223 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2026) governs this
matter, but requests that the court order a bond hearing for petitioner, rather than
release. (Doc. 3 at 7).

Like the Buele Morocho court, this court weighs petitioner's due process

rights by considering the Eldridge‘ factors to determine “whether detention
without bond of noncitizens who have lived in the United States for extended
periods of time with no criminal records violates due process.” ss F.4th at__,
2026 WL 2546223, at *9-10. As to the first factor, “the private interest that will be

affected by the official action,” the Buele Morocho court held that “mandatory

detention implicates [the] ‘constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical

2 Respondents allege that on the day petitioner was taken into custody, he “was arrested and
charged . . . with simple assault, strangulation, and false imprisonment.” (Doc. 3 at 2). In
support, respondents cite a fingerprint card that shows only that petitioner was charged with
being an inadmissible alien. (See Doc. 3-5 at 2). Respondents appear to have made an error
as to petitioner's criminal charges.

3 Respondents allege that petitioner was to have a master hearing on September 9, 2026.
(Doc. 3 at 2). But the court’s review of the EOIR Automated Case Information website shows
the hearing scheduled on October 20, 2026. https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caselnformation.

4 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
3

Case 3:26-cv-02473-JKM Document6 Filed 10/15/26 Page4of6

restraint.” Id. at *9 (quoting Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335; Kansas v. Hendricks, 521

U.S. 346, 356 (1997) (citations omitted)). And so, it does here.

The second factor concerns “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional
or substitute procedural safeguards.” Id. (quoting Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335).

The Buele Morocho court found such risk exists in situations like here, because

of “the absence of an opportunity for a neutral decisionmaker to assess” the
dangerousness or flight risk of a defendant. Id.

As to the third factor, “the government's interest, including the function
involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or
substitute procedural requirement would entail,” id. (quoting Eldridge, 424 U.S. at
335), the court held that the “legitimate interest in preventing the release of
dangerous noncitizens and those who might fail to appear at future hearings
does not outweigh the other two factors here, particularly when [the] non-criminal
individuals were detained absent evidence that either is dangerous or a flight
risk, and the Government has not argued that bond hearings are unduly
burdensome.” Id. at *10 (citation modified). The same reasoning applies here.
There is no evidence that petitioner resisted ICE officers or was uncooperative in
their enforcement efforts. There is also no evidence that he failed to appear at

any immigration hearings in the past. And petitioner has no criminal history.

4

Case 3:26-cv-02473-JKM Document6 Filed 10/15/26 Page5of6

Weighing these factors, the failure to provide petitioner with a bond or
custody redetermination hearing violated his right to procedural due process.

Buele Morocho, 2026 WL 2546223, at*10. Therefore, his petition will be

granted. Habeas courts “have the power to order the conditional release of an
individual unlawfully detained—though release need not be the exclusive remedy
and is not the appropriate one in every case in which the writ is granted.”

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008). In this case, only immediate

release will remedy the due process violation that Pacheco Pinto has
experienced.

Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1) | Eduardo Fabian Pacheco Pinto’s petition for writ of habeas corpus,
(Doc. 1), is GRANTED;

2) |The government shall immediately release petitioner from its custody;

3) Onor before October 19, 2026, the government shall file a
declaration or affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 confirming that petitioner
has been released;

4) The government shall release petitioner under the same conditions
that existed prior to his detention, including release: (1) in an area where the
petitioner resides or where he has access to means of interstate transportation;

(2) without the imposition of additional conditions; (3) with all clothing and

Case 3:26-cv-02473-JKM Document6 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6of6

outerwear worn at the time of the detention or other appropriate attire; and (4)
with all personal property, including, but not limited to, any driver's license,
passport, immigration documents, currency, or cell phone that was seized at the
time of detention and that is currently in their custody, possession, or control,
whether maintained directly by respondents or by any contracted or affiliated
facility;

5) The government is temporarily enjoined from re-arresting petitioner
for a period of 7 days to ensure that this habeas remedy is effective;

6) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with
this memorandum order; and

7) | The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.°

Date: _/ abs Ls i BY THE COURT:

JUDGE JULIA K. MUNLE
United States District

5 Petitioner requests attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 1 at 15). A petition
for writ of habeas corpus challenging immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is a civil
action for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), and this
statute unambiguously applies here. Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Corr. Ctr., 169
F.4th 418, 428, 432 (3d Cir. 2026). Petitioner may file a motion for costs and fees within 30
days of the entry of judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); Villa Hernandez v. Kunes, No. 1:25-
CV-01847, 2026 WL 411726, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2026) (Wilson, J.); see FED. R. Civ. P.
54(d).

6