FELIPE v. STAMPER et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
SANTIAGO FELIPE FELIPE, 	)
)
Petitioner 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:26-cv-00026-LEW
)
DERRICK STAMPER, et al., 	)
)
Respondents 	)
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Petitioner Santiago Felipe Felipe’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (ECF No. 1). 	Petitioner seeks release from immigration detention. 	Respondent
Derrick Stamper, Chief Patrol Agent of the Houlton Sector, U.S. Border Patrol, and the
other federal respondents oppose the Petition. 	For the following reasons, the Petition is
granted.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a national of Guatemala. 	According to his Petition, he entered the
United States between ports of entry without status sometime in 2012 and has resided in
the United States since that date. 	Petitioner’s current residence is in Framingham,
Massachusetts. 	U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents detained Petitioner in Bethel,
Maine, on January 15, 2026, where he was working on a construction project. Petitioner
asserts that ongoing detention without an opportunity for release on bond violates the Due
Process Clause and a standing order of the United States District Court for the District of
Case 2:26-cv-00026-LEW Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Massachusetts, Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 1:25-cv-12664 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2025),
which 	granted 	relief 	to 	a 	class 	of 	persons 	subject 	to 	detention 	pending 	removal
proceedings.1
On January 19, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 5) that
directed the Respondents to address the merits of the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In
their Response (ECF No. 6), Respondents maintain that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention pending the completion of removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), but
acknowledge that that assertion is contrary to local precedent.
DISCUSSION
The lawfulness of immigration detention is subject to review by, and unlawful
detention is subject to remedy in, a United States District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The exercise of jurisdiction over this matter is proper because it presents a challenge to the
lawfulness 	of 	detention 	and 	does 	not 	otherwise 	challenge 	the 	underlying 	removal
proceedings. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516-17 (2003); Kong v. United States, 62
F.4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 11); Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons,
10 F.4th 19, 33 (1st Cir. 2021). The petitioner must prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Aditya W.H. v. Trump, 2025 WL 1420131, at *7 (D.
Minn. 2025) (collecting authority).
1 The scope of the relief awarded in Guerrero Orellana extends to mandatory detentions of similarly situated
noncitizens under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) “who are either detained within Massachusetts or subject to the
jurisdiction of an immigration court in Massachusetts.” Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 2025 WL 3687757, at *1 (D.
Mass. Dec. 19, 2025).
Case 2:26-cv-00026-LEW Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Based 	on 	the 	factual 	assertions 	contained 	in 	the 	Petition 	and 	the 	Federal
Respondent’s failure to oppose any of the factual assertions, I find that Petitioner has
resided in the United States for two years or more and that he entered the United States
without admission or inspection. Given these circumstances and based on the district court
decisions discussed in the parties’ submissions—precedent that they and the Court are well
aware of concerning multiple recent habeas petitions, injunctions, and writs granted in this
Court—I summarily grant habeas relief without a hearing, conditioned on Petitioner’s
prompt receipt of a bond hearing by an immigration judge.2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED
(ECF No 1). It is HEREBY ORDERED that in order for Respondents to continue detaining
Petitioner they must hold a hearing within 7 days before an immigration judge to consider
Petitioner’s request for release on bond pending the conclusion of his removal proceedings.
If a bond hearing is held, Respondents will release Petitioner on bond unless the
Government carries the burden prescribed by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons,
10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021). 	If a hearing is not scheduled within that timeframe,
Respondents will release Petitioner and his release will be subject to all conditions imposed
under the Order of Release and Recognizance. 	During the 7-day period, removal of
Petitioner from the District of Maine while he remains subject to detention is ENJOINED
except to enable his attendance at a bond hearing in the District of Massachusetts, if that is
2 See, e.g., Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, 2:25-cv-00437-SDN, 2025 WL 2688541 (D. Me. Sept. 22, 2025);
Bermeo Sicha v. Bernal, 25-cv-00418-SDN, 2025 WL 2494530 (D. Me. Aug. 29, 2025).
Case 2:26-cv-00026-LEW Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
where the hearing is held. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No.
3) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20 th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00026-LEW Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>