C.C.M. v. WOLFORD et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
C.C.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
WOLFORD, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 26-1323
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (ECF No. 1) filed by C.C.M., a native and citizen of Ecuador. On July 29, 2026, Kurt
Wolford, et al., (“Respondents”) filed a response to the petition (ECF No. 11), and on August 5,
2026, C.C.M. filed a reply (ECF No. 13). The court concludes that it needs supplemental briefing
from both parties.
I. Background
C.C.M. states that, fearing violence in Ecuador on account of her gender and sexual
identity, she entered the United States without inspection in 2003 and, for the past 23 years, has
lived in the United States as “a transgender woman who is attracted to men” (ECF No. 1 at 1–4).
During this period, C.C.M. obtained employment, went to English classes, and pled guilty to
various criminal offenses (Id. at 5). On or about August 22, 2025, C.C.M. was arrested by police
in New York, accused of petit larceny, and “transferred to the custody of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (‘ICE’)” (Id. at 2, 5). She has been detained since that date and is currently detained
in the all-male housing unit at Cambria Country Prison in Ebensburg, Pennsylvania (Id. at 2, 8).
On March 2, 2026, an immigration judge denied all forms of relief, which C.C.M. timely
Case 3:26-cv-01323-JFC Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 5

2
appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Id. at 7; ECF No. 11-1 at 13). In the last update
from the parties, they report that this appeal is still pending (ECF No. 1 at 7).
Citing the four-factor test found in German Santos v. Warden Pike County Correctional
Facility, 965 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020), “C.C.M. challenges her indefinite, prolonged detention as a
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” and asserts that German Santos
applies to her detention, regardless which immigration detention statute applies to her (Id. at 7–
18). She contends that she has been detained for eleven months (now over twelve months), her
detention is likely to continue as appellate review proceeds, she has not delayed her removal
proceedings, and “the conditions at Cambria County Prison are not ‘meaningfully different from
criminal punishment’” (Id. at 13–18). As relief, C.C.M. “asks this Court to grant a writ of habeas
corpus and order Respondents to provide her with a bond hearing at which the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
C.C.M. poses a danger or flight risk that cannot be mitigated by bond and/or alternatives to
detention, and where the adjudicator must consider alternatives to detention when assessing danger
and flight risk and C.C.M.’s ability to pay when setting a bond amount” (Id. at 7).
Respondents assert that C.C.M. is mandatorily detained under § 1226(c) or § 1225(b) and
her due process claim lacks merit (ECF No. 11 at 6–19). Arguing that the German Santos factors
do not weigh in her favor, Respondents contend that C.C.M.’s length of detention is “well short of
the ‘two-and-a-half years long’ detention” experienced by the German Santos petitioner, she is
approaching the end of her removal proceedings, the government has not improperly delayed the
proceedings, and her detention in Cambria County Prison is civil in nature (Id. at 12–19).
II. Legal Analysis
Based upon the reasoning of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Buele Morocho v.
Case 3:26-cv-01323-JFC Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Warden Philadelphia FDC, No. 26-1150, 2026 WL 2546223 (3rd Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), the court
finds that C.C.M. is not properly detained under § 1225(b), so C.C.M. must be detained under §
1226(a) (arrest, detention, and release) or § 1226(c) (detention of criminal aliens).
The German Santos factors are properly applied to either detention statute. See German
Santos, 965 F.3d at 210 (finding that an alien detained under § 1226(c) for an unreasonably
prolonged period has a due process right to a bond hearing); Fadel v. Warden of Moshannon Valley
ICE Processing Ctr., No. 3:26-cv-00625, 2026 WL 1649901, at *2–3 (W.D. Pa. June 8, 2026)
(finding Third Circuit Court of Appeals precedent does not categorically foreclose a bond hearing
for § 1226(a) detainees experiencing unreasonably prolonged detention and applying the German
Santos factors). Under those rationales, in order to determine whether C.C.M.’s detention has
become unreasonable, the court will conduct an analysis of the four German Santos factors: (i) the
duration of detention; (ii) whether the detention is likely to continue; (iii) reasons for the delay;
and (iv) whether the detainee’s conditions of confinement are “meaningfully different from
criminal punishment.” See German Santos, 965 F.3d at 210–11. Among those factors, “[t]he most
important factor is the duration of detention.” Id. at 211.
Applying those factors here, the court concludes that C.C.M.’s detention has become
unreasonable and violates due process. Although there is no bright-line threshold of unreasonable
duration, “[c]ourts within this circuit have previously found detention for over one year weighs in
favor of the petitioner[,]” (see Nyamekye v. Oddo, No. CV 22-240J, 2023 WL 9271844, at *3
(W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2023), R&R adopted, No. CR 3:22-CV-240, 2023 WL 9271879 (W.D. Pa.
May 4, 2023)), and C.C.M. has been detained for over one year. See ECF No. 1 at 13. Her
detention is likely to continue because she is awaiting BIA decision and “would be entitled to file
a petition for review” of an unfavorable BIA decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. See
Case 3:26-cv-01323-JFC Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 5

4
id. at 15; see also German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212 (finding this factor weighed in the petitioner’s
favor where he was awaiting BIA decision and potential appellate review). There are no
allegations that either party caused delays in the underlying proceedings. See ECF No. 1 at 15-16;
ECF No. 11 at 14.
With respect to the conditions of confinement, C.C.M. is detained in Cambria County
Prison, which, pursuant to a federal contract between ICE and the prison, houses both criminal
prisoners and civil immigration detainees. See ECF No. 11 at 15. In Cambria County Prison,
C.C.M. alleges that “she is forced to wear a uniform; prison staff assign her residential unit
according to security status; her unit houses more than 60 individuals who all share sleeping
quarters and communal toilets; she observes violent interactions between other detainees; prison
staff threaten solitary confinement as punishment; prison staff control the employment
opportunities; and access to medical care is restricted and often denied by prison officials.” See
ECF No. 1 at 17 (citing C.C.M.’s Declaration). Respondents do not offer any evidence in rebuttal.
See ECF No. 11 at 15. Based upon the undisputed fact before the court, C.C.M.’s conditions of
confinement are not meaningfully different from criminal punishment. See German Santos, 965
F.3d at 212–213 (finding that this factor weighed in the petitioner’s favor where he was housed
with criminal detainees and confined to his cell for extensive periods).
Upon concluding that the first, second, and fourth factor weigh in C.C.M.’s favor, while
the third remains neutral, the court finds that C.C.M.’s detention has become unreasonable and
intends to direct that C.C.M. be afforded a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an
immigration judge.1
1 The court notes that the relief available under German Santos is an individualized bond hearing, not release. German
Santos, 965 F.3d at 210 (“DUE PROCESS AFFORDS ALIENS DETAINED UNDER § 1226(C) A BOND
HEARING ONCE DETENTION BECOMES UNREASONABLE”); Fadel, 2026 WL 1649901, at *5 (granting bond
hearing, not release).
Case 3:26-cv-01323-JFC Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Based upon the information before it, however, the court is unable to determine which
party shall bear the burden of proof at this initial bond hearing. It is well-recognized that § 1226(c)
petitioners receive a burden-shifted bond hearing under German Santos, but under Borbot v.
Warden Hudson County Corrections Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 276 (3d Cir. 2018), a burden-shifted
hearing for § 1226(a) petitioners is prohibited. See, e.g., Abdoulaye Ba v. Oddo, No. 26-1466, 2026
WL 2529806, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2026)); but see Bah v. Oddo, No. 3:26-CV-01393, 2026
WL 2561261, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2026) (Horan, J.); Soto-Diaz v. Moshannon Valley
Processing Center, No. 3:26-CV-1152 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 22, 2026) (Schwab, J.).
On this record, the court is unable to determine whether C.C.M. is properly detained under
§ 1226(c) or § 1226(a) because neither party filed the pertinent criminal records. See generally
ECF Nos. 1; 11; 13. The court, therefore, will order each party to file a supplemental brief on or
before October 22, 2026, addressing whether C.C.M. is detained under § 1226(a) or § 1226(c) and
providing the relevant criminal records where necessary.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1), will
be TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. An appropriate order follows.
BY THE COURT:
Dated: October 8, 2026 /s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Senior United States District Court Judge
Case 3:26-cv-01323-JFC Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 5