CORREA v. STAMPER et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOSE LUIS MERCHAN CORREA, 	)
)
Petitioner 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:26-cv-00024-LEW
)
DERRICK STAMPER, et al., 	)
)
Respondents 	)
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Luis Merchan Correa’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 Ecuador. According to his Petition, which is verified, in
2019, Petitioner entered the United States between ports of entry but was detained by the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on December 21, 2019. 	DHS detained
Petitioner but then released him into the United States “in accordance with section 236 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act,” i.e., 8 U.S.C. § 1226, pursuant to an Order of Release
and Recognizance, and subject to conditions. 	Although DHS released Petitioner, it also
Case 2:26-cv-00024-LEW Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
instituted removal proceedings and directed him to appear at a hearing roughly one year
from the date of his release. 	Pet. ¶ 3; Pet. Ex. 2.
Petitioner settled in Portland with his family. 	On January 13, 2026, U.S. Border
Patrol agents detained Petitioner at a job site in Oxford County. 	Petitioner remains in
Maine and is currently detained in Fort Fairfield. 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 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
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-00024-LEW Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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).
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 but was then detained and released under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
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
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-00024-LEW Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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
where the hearing is held. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No.
3) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00024-LEW Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>