Neto v. Choate et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
VIVIAN G. SORIANO NETO,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHNNY CHOATE, in his official
capacity as Warden, Aurora ICE
Processing Center; ERNESTO
SANTACRUZ, in his official capacity
as Acting Field Office Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; PATRICIA HYDE,
Director ICE Boston Field Office;
KRISTI NOEM, U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security; in their official
capacities,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM
ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
The Petitioner, Vivian G. Soriano Neto, is currently detained at a United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Contract Detention Facility in
Denver, Colorado, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). 	The Petitioner, aged 18 years
old, entered the United States from Honduras with her family when she was 10 years
old. 	In March 2025, while she was enrolled in high school in Rhode Island, ICE
arrested her based on pending Rhode Island criminal charges. In June 2025 she was
transferred to the Colorado facility.
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 12 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
She filed the instant Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5) to obtain a federal
writ of habeas corpus
ad prosequendum or
ad testificandum so that she can be
present for and assist with her defense in Rhode Island Superior Court. She currently
has an appearance scheduled in that court for October 28, 2025. 	The Government
has objected and seeks a denial of the Petition.
The primary issue is whether this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of
habeas corpus to direct the warden of the federal facility in Colorado to bring the
Petitioner to state court criminal proceedings in Rhode Island.
A writ of habeas corpus may be issued by a district court and extended to a
prisoner “[i]f it is necessary to bring [her] into court to testify [ad testificandum] or
for trial [ad prosequendum].” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5). “The writ is ‘issued directly by
a court of the jurisdiction where an indictment, information, or complaint has been
lodged against the prisoner.’”
United States v. Kelly, 661 F.3d 682, 686 (1st Cir. 2011)
(quoting
Stewart v. Bailey, 7 F.3d 384, 389 (4th Cir.1993)). 	“It operates as ‘a court
order requesting the prisoner's appearance to answer charges in the summoning
jurisdiction.’”
	Id. 	Moreover, this authority has extraterritorial application.
	Carbo
v. United States, 364 U.S. 611, 612, 620 (1961) (holding that a California federal court
had authority to order a New York City prison office to produce a prison so that the
individual could be brought to California to stand trial in federal court).
A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum “allows the issuing court to ‘obtain
temporary custody of the prisoner.’”
	Kelly, 661 F.3d at 686. Indeed, “[t]he nature of
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 12 Filed 10/21/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the writ is such that the sending state retains full jurisdiction over the prisoner since
the prisoner is only ‘on loan’ to the prosecuting jurisdiction.”
Id. (quotation omitted).
Federal courts have the power to issue writs of habeas corpus for a prisoner in
federal custody at the request of state prosecutorial authorities.
See Barber v. Page,
390 U.S. 719, 724 (1968). 	Here, the request is not made by state prosecutorial
authorities but a “writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum/testificandum” issued by
the Rhode Island Superior Court. 	(ECF No. 11.) 	This implicates the long-standing
principal of reciprocal comity between sovereigns in our dual system of justice. 	As
the Supreme Court explained in
Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260-62 (1922), the
power to “lend” a prisoner from one sovereign to another arises from mutual respect
and cooperation in the administration of justice. 	The Superior Court’s writ here
functions as a formal invocation of that comity and does not diminish federal
authority; rather, it exemplifies the cooperative accommodation that the
Ponzi Court
deemed essential to ensuring that each sovereign may vindicate its own laws without
undue interference from the other.
The Court therefore GRANTS the Petition (ECF No. 1) as follows: the
Respondents are ORDERED to ensure that 	the Petitioner is transported and
produced before the Rhode Island Superior Court in sufficient time to appear at her
scheduled hearing on October 28, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. 	In the alternative, if such
transportation cannot be arranged, Respondents shall release Petitioner no later
than October 25, 2025, to permit her to make her own travel arrangements and to be
personally present at the hearing.
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 12 Filed 10/21/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
October 21, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 12 Filed 10/21/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>