Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 20, 2025

Llugsha v. Doe

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-09373
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha v. John Doe, Judge Garnett granted an extension and postponed the conference while a transfer motion remained undecided.

Who this affects

Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha, his representative, and Respondents in the detention case were affected by the extended filing deadline, communication directive, and postponed conference.

What happened

Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha filed a petition asking the federal court to review his detention. He alleged that a government agent detained him and brought him to 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan. Respondents argued that the case should be transferred to the District of New Jersey because he was already there when the petition was filed.

Petitioner’s representative asked for a one-week extension to obtain a statement from Petitioner about when he was transferred to New Jersey. The court granted that request, allowing any further statement to be filed by December 1, 2025. The court also directed Respondents to make reasonable efforts to help the representative communicate with Petitioner.

Judge Garnett postponed the November 20 conference without setting a new date. The court did not yet rule on Respondents’ motion to transfer; it said it would address that motion after receiving any further statement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Llugsha v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-09373
Judge
Garnett
Date
Nov. 20, 2025

Background

Alex Hernan Pacha Llugsha filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a person to challenge certain detention. The petition alleged 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 requiring Respondents to respond by November 14, 2025, Petitioner to reply by November 18, 2025, and counsel for the parties to attend a conference on November 20, 2025. Respondents then moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that Petitioner was already in New Jersey when his representative filed the petition. The opinion cited authority stating that, for a core detention challenge, jurisdiction generally lies in the district where the person is confined, but the court did not decide the transfer motion in this order.

Ruling

Petitioner’s representative moved for a one-week extension to obtain a declaration from Petitioner about the timing of his transfer to New Jersey. The court granted that motion. Any further declaration was due by Monday, December 1, 2025; if Petitioner did not plan to file one, the court required notification by that date.

The court also directed Respondents to make all reasonable efforts to allow Petitioner’s representative to communicate with Petitioner to prepare the declaration. It adjourned the November 20 conference without setting a future date. The court stated that it would issue an order addressing Respondents’ transfer motion after receiving any further declaration.

Effect of the Order

This order addressed the extension and scheduling issues. It did not decide whether the case should be transferred and did not decide the underlying detention challenge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.