Perez y Perez v. Noem
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-04828
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Perez y Perez v. Noem, Judge Ho restricted detention transfers and denied the temporary restraining order as moot.
Milton Misael Perez y Perez, who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Government officials responsible for his detention and transfer. The order restricted where he could be transferred while his case proceeded and set deadlines for the parties.
What happened
In Perez y Perez v. Noem, Milton Misael Perez y Perez challenged his transfer while detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was moved from New York to New Jersey after filing his case and faced a possible transfer to Washington or Texas.
The court ordered that he remain in New Jersey until space became available in the Southern District of New York, after which he had to be transferred there. The court also barred later transfers, absent another court order, except to facilities in the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or New Jersey. It set deadlines for a bail application and further scheduling.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied Perez y Perez’s request for a temporary restraining order as moot and postponed the scheduled conference without setting a new date. The order did not decide the merits of his pending detention challenge.
The detailed version
- Perez y Perez v. Noem · No. 1:25-cv-04828
- Ho
- June 13, 2025
Background
Milton Misael Perez y Perez, a citizen of Guatemala, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 7, 2025. He was temporarily held at 26 Federal Plaza in New York. On June 8, while detained there, he filed a petition challenging his detention and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent his transfer outside the Southern District of New York.
Later on June 8, he was transferred to the Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey. The court stated that the petition had been filed before that transfer, and it found that there was no dispute about its jurisdiction over the case. The Government later said that Perez y Perez was scheduled to be transferred to a facility in Seattle, Washington. After further court orders and a conference, the Government said that detention space would soon become available for him in the Southern District of New York.
Court’s Order
Relying on the flexible nature of habeas relief and its authority under the All Writs Act, the court ordered that Perez y Perez could not be transferred from New Jersey until space became available in the Southern District of New York. When space became available, he was to be transferred to that district.
The court also ordered that he could not later be transferred, absent another order from the court, except to a facility within the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey. The court explained that this restriction would protect his ability to participate in the proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel.
The court rejected or found moot the Government’s objections. The Government’s capacity objection was moot because it expected space to become available in the Southern District of New York and already intended to move Perez y Perez there. The court also found that, as in a prior related proceeding, Perez y Perez planned to seek bail promptly and that his counsel represented that a remote transfer could interfere with adequate legal representation.
Scheduling and Disposition
The court ordered Perez y Perez to submit a bail application by June 20, 2025, and the Government to respond by June 27, 2025. The parties had to submit a joint status letter by July 1, 2025, proposing a schedule for briefing on the merits of the pending detention challenge.
The court denied as moot Perez y Perez’s motion for a temporary restraining order. It adjourned the July 8, 2025 conference without setting a new date. This order addressed transfer restrictions and case scheduling; it did not decide the merits of the pending habeas petition.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.