SINTUJ v. STAMPER et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ELDER BENJAMIN ORTIZ SINTUJ, )
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:26-cv-00027-JAW
)
DERRICK STAMPER, in his 	)
official capacity Chief Patrol Agent, 	)
U.S. Border Patrol, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
The court finds that the Government’s release of the petitioner in Youngstown,
Ohio violated this court’s order requiring the Government to return the petitioner
from Louisiana to Maine. 	After discussion with counsel, the court concludes the
Government did not violate the court’s order in bad faith and an award of attorney’s
fees and costs will suffice to address the Government’s violation, along with an order
that the Government may not re-detain the petitioner without providing prior notice
to his counsel.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Elder 	Benjamin 	Ortiz 	Sintuj’s 	Petition 	for 	Writ 	of 	Habeas
Corpus
Elder Benjamin Ortiz Sintuj, a resident of Middlesex County, Massachusetts,
is a Guatemalan citizen who arrived in the United States in March 2023. 	Pet. for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ¶¶ 1-2 (ECF No. 1) (Pet.). 	On
January 15, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested and
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
detained Mr. Sintuj while he was working at a construction site in Bethel, Maine. Id.
¶ 3. 	On January 18, 2026, alleging his immigration detention violates federal law
and the United States Constitution, Mr. Sintuj filed a verified petition for writ of
habeas corpus and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order blocking
his removal from the District of Maine. 	Pet. at 1-11; Emer. Mot. for TRO to Stop
Transfer Without Prior Consent (ECF No. 3). 	Mr. Sintuj’s petition sought, among
other remedies, an order requiring an Immigration Judge to provide him with a bond
hearing as soon as possible, or in the alternative, a writ of habeas corpus ordering his
immediate release during his habeas proceedings. 	Id. 10-11. 	That same day, the
Court 	issued 	a 	forty-eight-hour 	emergency 	order, 	enjoining 	Respondents 	from
transferring Mr. Sintuj outside the District of Maine. Emer. Order Concerning Stay
or Transfer of Removal (ECF No. 4).
At the teleconference of counsel on January 20, 2026, Respondents informed
the Court that although Mr. Sintuj was physically in Maine when the habeas petition
was filed at 11:22 a.m. on Sunday, January 18, 2026, before the Court issued its
emergency order 2:45 p.m. the same day, Respondents had already transferred Mr.
Sintuju outside the state of Maine on a flight to Jackson Parish Correctional Center
in Jonesboro, Louisiana “roughly two hours before the Court’s issuance of the
Emergency Order” 	Return and Resp. to O.S.C. in Opp’n to Pet. for Writ of Habeas
Corpus at 1 (ECF No. 10) (Resp’ts’ Opp’n); Min. Entry (ECF No. 7).
Given this development, Respondents conceded the Court’s jurisdiction, and
the parties agreed to amend Mr. Sintuj’s motion for TRO to block his removal from
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the country and ensure his reasonable access to counsel. 	Min. Entry. 	The parties
also agreed there were no factual disputes for the Court to resolve in this matter and
stipulated to the facts in Mr. Sintuj’s verified petition and its exhibits. Id.
On January 21, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause why Mr.
Sintuj’s petition should not be granted, including whether the Court can and should
order Mr. Sintuj’s return to the District of Maine, O.S.C. (ECF No. 8), and issued a
TRO blocking Respondents from removing Mr. Sintuj from the United States and
ordering Respondents provide Mr. Sintuj with reasonable access to counsel during
his period of detention. Order on Mot. for TRO (ECF No. 9) (TRO). That same day,
Respondents filed their response to the show cause order, opposing Mr. Sintuj’s
petition, Resp’ts’ Opp’n, and Mr. Sintuj filed his reply. Pet’r’s Reply to Resp’ts’ Resp.
to O.S.C. (ECF No. 11).
B. 	The Court’s January 28, 2026 Order
On January 28, 2026, the Court granted in part and deferred in part Mr.
Sintuj’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. 	Order Granting Pet. for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (ECF No. 13) (Order). 	The Court ordered Respondents to return Mr. Sintuj
to Maine within five days of the date of the order and to submit within seven days an
affidavit or sworn declaration confirming the exact time of Mr. Sintuj’s departure
from the District of Maine on January 18, 2026. Id. at 14.
Given concerns about a delayed return from a similar case, DuPont v. Meserve,
2:25-cv-00593-JAW, the Court’s order explained it would schedule a teleconference
with counsel to “discuss logistics and timing” to avoid “a roundabout and delayed
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
return from Louisiana to Maine.” 	Id. at 14 n.2. 	The Court suggested that an
alternative to the Government itself returning Mr. Sintuj to Maine would be to
release him on personal recognizance so that he return to Massachusetts and obtain
his bond hearing there. 	The Court expressed reluctance to order this alternative
without “discuss[ing] . . . with counsel at the to-be-scheduled conference.” 	Id. 	The
Court otherwise deferred additional action on the merits of the petition. Id. at 14-15.
The Clerk’s Office scheduled the teleconference for Friday, February 6, 2026, Min.
Entry (ECF No. 16), and Judgment issued on January 29, 2026. J. (ECF No. 14).
C. 	Elder Benjamin Ortiz Sintuj’s Release in Youngstown, Ohio and
Respondents’ Sworn Declaration
On February 3, 2026, Respondents filed a status report, representing that ICE
had transferred Mr. Sintuj from custody in Louisiana to ICE custody at the Mahoning
County Jail in Youngstown, Ohio at which point they released Mr. Sintuj out of
concern that his transfer to Maine would not be completed by the February 2
deadline. Status Report and Notice of Correction at 2 (ECF No. 16) (Status Report).
Respondents also provided a sworn declaration from Border Patrol Agent
Jonathan W. Lemay, correcting previous information Respondents had supplied to
the Court about the timing of Mr. Sintuj’s transfer from the District of Maine. 	Id.,
Attach. 1 Decl. of Jonathan M. Lemay (Lemay Decl.). Agent Lemay explained that at
approximately 9:00 a.m. on January 18, 2026, U.S. Border Patrol drove Mr. Sintuj
over the Maine border into New Hampshire and that the previously referenced ICE
flight departed Massachusetts between 10:15 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Lemay Decl. ¶¶ 7-
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
10. 	Based on Agent Lemay’s statement, Respondents averred Mr. Sintuj filed his
petition in the District of Maine after he had left its jurisdiction. Status Report at 3.
D. 	The February 3, 2026 Teleconference of Counsel
On February 6, 2026, the Court held a teleconference of counsel. 	Min. Entry
(ECF No. 18). 	The Court first asked for information about Mr. Sintuj’s release and
his current whereabouts. Counsel informed the Court that, upon Mr. Sintuj’s release
in Ohio, a third-party volunteer assisted Mr. Sintuj in purchasing a bus ticket home
to Massachusetts, where he remains released. Id. Counsel stated that, to the best of
their knowledge, Respondents did not provide Mr. Sintuj with any documentation
imposing conditions of release. Id. Respondents conceded Mr. Sintuj’s release in Ohio
violated the Court’s January 28, 2026 order to return Mr. Sintuj to Maine by the end
of the day on February 2, 2026 and explained that their violation was not in bad faith,
but 	rather 	a 	product 	of 	the 	agency 	being 	disorganized 	and 	overwhelmed, 	in
combination with their concern that they would be in violation of the Court’s January
28, 2026 order if they did not release Mr. Sintuj on February 2, 2026, regardless of
whether he had returned to Maine. Id.
Considering Respondents’ violation and Mr. Sintuj’s release and return home,
the Court asked counsel about what additional process, if any, remained. 	Id. 	Mr.
Sintuj requested a court order confirming his release on personal recognizance,
blocking Respondents from re-detaining Mr. Sintuj without prior notice to his
counsel, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. Id. Respondents agreed to Mr. Sintuj’s
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
proposed order and stated that they would not raise any jurisdictional challenges
related to the timing of Mr. Sintuj’s transfer outside of the District of Maine. Id.
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Court accepts the representations of counsel concerning the events
surrounding Mr. Sintuj’s initial transfer outside the District of Maine and his release
in Youngstown, Ohio. Concerning Mr. Sintuj’s transfer outside the District of Maine
before he filed his petition, the Court accepts Respondents concession of habeas
jurisdiction. As a general rule, a habeas petitioner must file his petition in the district
where he is confined. 	Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-47 (2004); see also 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (“Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . the district courts
within their respective jurisdictions” when a petitioner “is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”). 	Because the district of
confinement rule is “not jurisdictional in the sense of subject-matter jurisdiction,”
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 434 n.7, but rather “a question of personal jurisdiction or venue,”
“objections to the filing of petitions based on those grounds can be waived by the
Government.” Id. at 451-52 (K ENNEDY , J., concurring) (citations omitted).
The Court also accepts Respondents’ concession that Mr. Sintuj’s release in
Youngstown, Ohio violated the Court’s January 28, 2026 order but that it was not
done in bad faith. As the Court’s January 28, 2026 order plainly states, the Court did
not order Mr. Sintuj’s release in Youngstown, Ohio. Rather, it ordered his return to
Maine.
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Respondents do not contest the clarity and unambiguity of the Court’s order.
AccuSoft Corp. v. Palo, 237 F.3d 31, 47 (1st Cir. 2001). Nor do Respondents suggest
that they lacked notice or the ability to comply with the order. See United States v.
Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983); Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11, 16 (1st
Cir. 1991). 	Indeed, had Respondents informed the Court they were returning Mr.
Sintuj to Maine but needed additional time to do so, the Court likely would’ve granted
them more time, if they had filed a motion requesting additional time to comply with
the order. 	Lastly, viewed in one way the Respondents’ release of Mr. Sintuj on
February 2, 2026 afforded him greater relief than the Court ordered in its January
28, 2026 order, because the Respondents released him without condition, rather than
returned him to Maine in detention subject to a bond hearing. 	Even though the
Respondents’ release of Mr. Sintuj at 8:30 a.m. in a city in Ohio with which he had no
known 	connection 	clearly 	violated 	the 	Court’s 	order, 	in 	combination 	with
Respondents’ 	representations 	that 	their 	violation 	of 	the 	order 	was 	due 	to
organizational dysfunction, the Court does not conclude Respondents violated the
January 28, 2026 order in bad faith.
As the parties agreed, the Court finds an award of attorney’s fees and costs the
appropriate sanction for Respondents’ violation of the Court’s January 28, 2026 order.
See Mullane v. Chambers, 333 F.3d 322, 338 (1st Cir. 2003) (Courts enjoy “broad
deference” in determining whether sanctions are appropriate). 	The Court will
therefore order Respondents compensate Mr. Sintuj for reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs for his entire representation. See Estate of McIntyre v. United States, 739
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
F. Supp. 2d 70, 75 (D. Mass. 2010) (holding the Government liable for reasonable
attorney’s fees and expenses for the entirety of the litigation). 	The Court finds that
attorney’s fees and costs for the entire representation are appropriate in this case for
two reasons. First, at the February 6, 2026 teleconference, Respondents agreed this
was the appropriate sanction. 	Second, Respondents’ violation of the Court’s order
arises from their conduct throughout the litigation. 	From the outset of this case,
Respondents repeatedly failed to accurately inform the Court and opposing counsel
of its own conduct in this matter, including the timing and location of Mr. Sintuj’s
whereabouts, transfers, and release.
Finally, because Respondents released Mr. Sintuj without conditions, the
Court accepts the Respondent’s apparent determination that conditions of release are
unnecessary for Mr. Sintuj, and the Court will not impose any ongoing conditions on
Mr. Sintuj’s continued release. 	However, as the Court is wary of allowing the
Respondents to re-detain Mr. Sintuj without some protection, see Jean Dupont v.
Hamilton Meserve, 2:25-cv-00593-JAW (ICE re-detained noncitizen within forty-eight
hours of the Court releasing him), the Court is ordering the Respondents to give Mr.
Sintuj’s counsel at least forty-eight hours prior notice before it detains him in the
future.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Elder Benjamin Ortiz Sintuj released on
personal recognizance, subject to standard conditions of release on recognizance. The
Court further ORDERS Respondents may not re-detain Mr. Sintuj without at least
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
forty-eight hours prior notice to his counsel. 	Lastly, the Court ORDERS Mr. Sintuj
is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including the cost of the bus ticket
from Youngstown, Ohio to Massachusetts, and ORDERS he file a proper motion with
this Court within seven days of the date of this order, and ORDERS Respondents to
file any objection within seven days of the date of counsel’s filing.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of February, 2026
Case 2:26-cv-00027-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/06/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>