Palma v. Arteta
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-09340
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jose Flores Palma v. Paul Arteta, Judge Cronan ordered responses to a habeas petition and bond-hearing question by set deadlines.
Jose Flores Palma and the respondents, including Paul Arteta; the order also directed notice to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
What happened
Jose Flores Palma filed a petition asking for habeas relief and a motion asking the court to require the respondents to explain why the petition should not be granted. The order does not describe the underlying detention or the requested relief in detail.
The court required the respondents to respond by November 17, 2025. Their response must address whether, in light of recent Second Circuit decisions, they plan to hold a bond hearing for Palma. Palma may reply by November 22, 2025.
This order set response deadlines and directed the Clerk to notify the U.S. Attorney’s Office; it did not decide the petition’s merits. Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on November 10, 2025.
The detailed version
- Palma v. Arteta · No. 1:25-cv-09340
- John Cronan
- Nov. 10, 2025
Background
On November 7, 2025, Jose Flores Palma filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and moved for an order requiring the respondents to show why the petition should not be granted. The opinion does not provide additional details about the petition’s factual or legal grounds.
Court’s Order
The court directed the respondents to respond to the petition no later than November 17, 2025. Their response must explain whether, in light of the recent decision in Black Decker, 103 F.4th 133 (2d Cir. 2024), and the later proceeding concerning that decision, they now plan to hold a bond hearing for Palma. Palma may file a reply by November 22, 2025.
The Clerk of Court was directed to electronically notify Jeffrey Oestericher, Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and to include the petition and motion with that notification.
Disposition
This is an interim procedural order setting briefing deadlines and requesting information about a possible bond hearing. The court did not grant or deny the habeas petition and did not decide its merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.