Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha v. John Doe, et al.

D. New Jersey

Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha v. John Doe, et al.

DecidedNovember 20, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-18151

StatusUnknown

This text of Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha v. John Doe, et al. (Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha v. John Doe, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha v. John Doe, et al., (D.N.J. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: ED: 11/20/202 ALEX HERNAN PACHA LLUGSHA, DATE FILED:_11/20/207> Petitioner, -against- 25-CV-09373 (MMG) JOHN DOE, et al., ORDER Respondents.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: On November 10, 2025, a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha (“Petitioner”). Dkt. No. 1. The Petition alleges that a Government agent detained Petitioner on November 10, 2025, and brought him to 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, New York. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Respondents to respond by November 14, 2025, Petitioner to reply by November 18, 2025, and counsel for all parties to appear at a hearing scheduled for November 20, 2025. Dkt. No. 4. On November 14, 2025, Respondents moved to transfer this action to the District Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that Petitioner was already in New Jersey when his counsel filed the Petition. Dkt. Nos. 6 & 7; see Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 391 (2d Cir. 2025) (“[FJor core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004))). On November 18, 2025, Petitioner’s representative moved for a one-week extension to seek a declaration from his client concerning “the timing of the transfer to New Jersey.” (Dkt. No. 10). On consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. Any further declaration concerning the timing of Petitioner’s transfer to New Jersey shall be filed on or before Monday, December 1, 2025. If Petitioner does not intend to file a further declaration, he shall notify the Court by email at GarnettNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov by no later than December 1, 2025. (2) Respondents are directed to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that Petitioner’s representative is able to communicate with Petitioner to prepare the declaration. (3) The conference scheduled for November 20, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. is ADJOURNED sine die.

The Court will issue an appropriate order addressing the Government’s motion to transfer after receiving any further declaration.

Dated: November 20, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

vanakyes y GARNETT United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: ED: 11/20/202 ALEX HERNAN PACHA LLUGSHA, DATE FILED:_11/20/207> Petitioner, -against- 25-CV-09373 (MMG) JOHN DOE, et al., ORDER Respondents.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: On November 10, 2025, a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha (“Petitioner”). Dkt. No. 1. The Petition alleges that a Government agent detained Petitioner on November 10, 2025, and brought him to 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, New York. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Respondents to respond by November 14, 2025, Petitioner to reply by November 18, 2025, and counsel for all parties to appear at a hearing scheduled for November 20, 2025. Dkt. No. 4. On November 14, 2025, Respondents moved to transfer this action to the District Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that Petitioner was already in New Jersey when his counsel filed the Petition. Dkt. Nos. 6 & 7; see Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 391 (2d Cir. 2025) (“[FJor core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004))). On November 18, 2025, Petitioner’s representative moved for a one-week extension to seek a declaration from his client concerning “the timing of the transfer to New Jersey.” (Dkt. No. 10). On consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. Any further declaration concerning the timing of Petitioner’s transfer to New Jersey shall be filed on or before Monday, December 1, 2025. If Petitioner does not intend to file a further declaration, he shall notify the Court by email at GarnettNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov by no later than December 1, 2025. (2) Respondents are directed to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that Petitioner’s representative is able to communicate with Petitioner to prepare the declaration. (3) The conference scheduled for November 20, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. is ADJOURNED sine die.

The Court will issue an appropriate order addressing the Government’s motion to transfer after receiving any further declaration.

Dated: November 20, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

vanakyes y GARNETT United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha v. John Doe, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alex-hernan-pacha-llugsha-v-john-doe-et-al-njd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack