Amaro v. Almodovar
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-07728
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cristina Copaluca Amaro v. Judith Almodovar, Judge Engelmayer ordered a response to a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and barred removal pending further order.
Cristina Copaluca Amaro is protected from removal from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York must respond to the petition within the ordered deadline.
What happened
Cristina Copaluca Amaro filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Judith Almodovar and others. The order does not explain the petition’s underlying claims or requested relief.
The court directed the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to file an answer or other response within 60 days. Cristina Copaluca Amaro may file a reply within 30 days after being served with the response.
To preserve the court’s ability to decide the petition, the court ordered that Cristina Copaluca Amaro not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. Judge Engelmayer did not decide the petition’s merits.
The detailed version
- Amaro v. Almodovar · No. 1:25-cv-07728
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
Cristina Copaluca Amaro filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not describe the petition’s factual allegations, the specific relief requested, or the respondents’ position.
Court’s directives
After examining the petition, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that the order had been issued. The U.S. Attorney’s Office must file an answer or other pleading responding to the petition within 60 days of the order’s date. Cristina Copaluca Amaro may file reply papers within 30 days after being served with the respondents’ answer.
The court also ordered that Cristina Copaluca Amaro not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. It explained that this restriction was necessary to preserve the court’s jurisdiction—the court’s authority to decide the petition—while the case remains pending.
Disposition
The order establishes the response schedule and temporarily prevents removal while the petition is pending. It does not decide whether the petition should be granted or denied, and it does not resolve the petition’s merits. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.