Costa v. Strafford County Department of Corrections, Superintendent et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Samuel Costa,
Petitioner
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-359-SM-TSM
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 064
Christopher Brackett,
Superintendent, Strafford County
Dept. of Corrections, et al.,
Respondents
O R D E R
Samuel Costa petitions the court for an order directing
respondents to release him immediately from ICE custody or, in
the alternative, an order directing the federal respondents to
provide him with a prompt, constitutionally-adequate bond
hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. 	See generally 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. 	On May 11, 2026, the respondents were directed to show
cause why the court should not issue an order granting Costa’s
petition to the extent it seeks an order directing them to grant
Costa a bond hearing based upon his apparent membership in the
class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-
PBS, 2025 WL 3687757, at *10-11 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2025), and/or
his similarity to the petitioner in Destino v. FCI Berlin,
Warden, No. 25-cv-374-SE-AJ, 2025 WL 4010424 (D.N.H. Dec. 24,
2025).
Case 1:26-cv-00359-SM-TSM Document 8 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The respondents filed their response to the order to show
cause on May 15, 2026, in which they maintain that Destino and
Guerrero Orellana were wrongly decided, assert that Costa is
subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and
object to the court granting the relief he seeks. 	See Response
to Order to Show Cause (document no. 6). 	Nonetheless, they
acknowledge that the court would reach the same result in this
case as it reached in Destino if it were to apply the same
reasoning as set forth in that case.
Conclusion
The respondents have failed to show cause why the court
should not order them to afford Costa a bond hearing before an
immigration judge (IJ). 	Because the court concludes that the
reasoning in Destino applies in this case, Costa’s petition is
granted, in part. 	The respondents are ordered to provide Costa
with a constitutionally-adequate bond hearing before an IJ as
soon as practicable, at which the government will bear the
burden to either: (1) prove by a preponderance that Costa is a
flight risk; or (2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that
he poses a danger to the community. 	See Destino, 2025 WL
4010424 at *8. 	See also Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19,
41 (1st Cir. 2021).
Case 1:26-cv-00359-SM-TSM Document 8 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
If the government fails to provide a bond hearing, the
court will set appropriate terms and conditions of the
petitioner’s release during the pendency of his removal
proceedings.
To the extent Costa seeks an order directing his immediate
release, that request is denied without prejudice. 	The court
finds that a bond hearing before an IJ is sufficient to protect
his rights at this stage.
The government shall file a status report within fourteen
days.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
June 1, 2026
cc: 	Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00359-SM-TSM Document 8 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 3