Neto v. Choate et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
VIVIAN G. SORIANO NETO,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA HYDE, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 25-00425-MSM-AEM
ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
The above-entitled matter came before this Court in August 2025 when
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus
ad prosequendum or ad testificandum to
allow her to “be present for and assist with her defense in Superior Court in
Providence County in the State of Rhode Island, for her criminal court appearance”
which was scheduled for October 2025. (ECF No. 1.) 	Petitioner, who had been
detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in March 2025, was
subsequently transferred to a Colorado ICE detention facility. 	That move made it
impossible for her to adjudicate her pending state-court case and thus challenge her
immigration detention.
Id.
On October 21, 2025, this Court granted the Petitioner’s motion and ordered
that she be transported to her Rhode Island Superior Court hearing which was
scheduled on October 28, 2025. 	ICE transferred the Petitioner to the Cumberland
County Jail (“CCJ”) in Portland Maine on October 24, 2025. 	She was brought to
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Superior Court in Rhode Island for her scheduled appearance and was returned to
the CCJ after her court hearing. 	Because she was expected to have additional
hearings in that case the Court, on November 3, 2025, ordered that she not be
removed from the Maine facility “without providing the Court with at least 72 hours
advance notice of the move and the reason therefore.”. 	That order has remained in
effect since that day with the exception of the Court allowing the Respondents to
transfer her from ICE custody to the temporary custody of the R.I. Sheriff for
purposes of her Superior Court hearing on January 14, 2026. On January 22, 2026,
the Court granted an assented-to motion for an amendment to the 72-hour order,
which would allow ICE to freely transport the Petitioner, without notice, for purposes
of her Superior Court case. (ECF No. 17.) That order reiterated the Court’s previous
72-hour notice order but provided for a limited and temporary exception. 	That
remained the only exception to this Court’s 72-hour notice order in this case.
On January 22, 2026, at 5:31 p.m. the Respondents filed an Emergency Motion
to 	Transfer 	requesting 	that 	the 	Court 	authorize 	the 	Petitioner’s 	transfer
“immediately to the ICE Boston Field Office, located at 1000 District Avenue,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.” 	(ECF No. 18.) 	Notably, in this filing the
Respondents 	asserted that “Petitioner is currently housed at the Cumberland
County Jail, 50 County Way, Portland, ME 04102.” The Respondents further stated
to the Court that “ICE agency counsel advised immediately before this filing that the
transfer from Cumberland County Jail is due to urgent operational needs, namely
that ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations can no longer house immigration
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
detainees at the Cumberland County Jail, and there is no additional available bed
space in Maine in which to house the Petitioner. 	ICE’s Enforcement and Removal
Operations is seeking to transfer the Petitioner to the ICE Boston Field Office
temporarily and on an emergency basis until more permanent bed space can be
identified.” (emphasis added) (ECF No. 18 at 1.)
At 10:52 p.m. on January 22, 2026, the Petitioner’s attorney filed an objection
to the Respondents’ Motion and asked for an immediate hearing. The Court convened
a hearing on January 23, 2006, at 11:30 a.m. After hearing argument from both sides,
the Court denied the Respondents’ Motion and ordered that, given the wholly
unsuitable nature of the proposed facility, the Petitioner remain at the CCJ. 	The
Court further ordered that “[i]f the Respondent concludes that it cannot continue to
house the Petitioner at the Cumberland County Jail in Portland, Maine and cannot,
with 72-hours' notice, house the Petitioner in any other appropriate facility, the
Petitioner must be released on conditions of bail.” That order was issued both orally
at the emergency motion hearing held on January 23, 2026, and in the written text
order issued at 12:09 p.m. on the same day.
The next morning it came to this Court’s attention that the Respondents may
have moved the Petitioner and other detainees from the facility in violation of this
Court’s orders. 	As a result, the Court ordered the Respondents to “provide a status
report to the Court no later than 12:00 noon on January 26, 2026. That report must
contain the following information: (1) the current location of the petitioner; (2) a
listing of all movement of the petitioner on or after January 15, 2026 including, date,
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
time, and authorizing agent; (3) a detailed account of why the agency is no longer able
to house detainees at the Cumberland County Jail as has been represented to this
Court.” That order was sent via email to counsel at 12:57 p.m. on January 24, 2026.
At 5:12 p.m. on that same day, the Petitioner filed an emergency Motion seeking the
Petitioner’s immediate release and asserting that “Respondents violated the Court
Order by transferring Petitioner from Cumberland County Jail without providing the
required 72 hours’ notice—or any notice whatsoever. 	Furthermore, Respondents
transferred Petitioner to the ICE Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts, the very
facility this Court found to be ‘a wholly unsuitable facility.’” (ECF No. 20, p. 2).
Because of this assertion the Court ordered that the Petitioner be released no later
than 9:00 p.m. that day and ordered the Respondents to provide the Court with a
status report no later than 10:00 p.m. indicating that she has been released. 	The
Court also ordered that the Respondents were not relieved of their requirement to
provide the status report that had been ordered to be filed by 12:00 p.m. on January
26, 2026. 	At 7:50 p.m. the Respondents filed a status report noting simply that the
Petitioner had been released.
On January 26, in response to the Court’s order of a status report the
Respondents produced ECF No. 22 and an attached affidavit filed under oath by
Keith Chan the Assistant Field Office Director for the Burlington Massachusetts
Field Office of ICE. The affidavit answers some, but crucially not all, of the questions
that the Court posed in its text order of 12:57 p.m. January 24, 2026. 	Notably the
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
affiant failed to provide the name of the person who authorized the Petitioner’s
removal from the CCJ.
From this affidavit it seems clear to the Court that several of its orders have
been violated and the Respondents misrepresented the facts to this Court in both its
emergency filing and the hearing held by the Court. 	Specifically, the Respondents
affirmed under oath that the Petitioner was removed from CCJ at 4:30 p.m. a full
hour before they filed their motion seeking permission to remove her from that
facility. 	Further she was removed and held at the facility that this Court held was
wholly unsuitable. At the time of the hearing on the Respondents’ Emergency Motion
to Transfer the Court asked if the Petitioner was currently at the CCJ and the
attorney for the Respondents indicated that it was his understanding when they filed
the motion that she was at the CCJ. Clearly, she was not. Perhaps the most flagrant
violation of this Court’s order stems from the Respondents continuing to hold her
after this Court’s clear order after that hearing that “if the Respondent concludes
that it cannot continue to house the Petitioner at the Cumberland County Jail in
Portland, Maine and cannot, with 72-hours' notice, house the Petitioner in any other
appropriate 	facility, 	the 	Petitioner 	must 	be 	released 	on 	conditions 	of 	bail.”
Notwithstanding the clear language of that order the Petitioner continued to be held
for more than twenty-four hours and was only released when the Petitioner’s attorney
discovered her whereabouts and appealed to the Court.
The 	Respondents 	are 	ordered 	to 	provide 	this 	Court 	with 	the 	following
information no later than 12:00 p.m. on January 30, 2026:
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
1. 	The name, agency, and role, of any person who authorized or was aware of
the movement of the petitioner from CCJ on January 22, 2026.
2. 	For those persons listed in answer 1, the date and time that they became
aware of the movement of the Petitioner in violation of this Court’s order.
3. 	The name of all persons who were notified of the outcome of this Court’s
January 23, 2026, hearing and the subsequent text order including the
date, time, and person who informed them of the order.
4. 	Any and all communications relating to the decision to continue to hold the
Petitioner after the January 23, 2026, hearing and order.
Based on the current record it seems clear that the Court can conclude that the
Respondents willfully violated two of this Court’s orders and willfully misrepresented
facts to the Court on January 23, 2026. The Respondents are ordered to show cause
as to why the Court should not conclude that these violations occurred and proceed
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
January 27, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-00425-MSM-AEM Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>