Elder Benjamin Ortiz Sintuj v. Derrick Stamper, in his official capacity Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol, et al.

Sintuj · United States District Court for the District of Maine · February 6, 2026 · No. 2:26-cv-00027-JAW

Summary

The District of Maine determined that the Government violated its order requiring the return of Elder Benjamin Ortiz Sintuj to Maine when it released him in Youngstown, Ohio, although the violation was not in bad faith. The court ordered Sintuj released on personal recognizance, barred the Government from re-detaining him without at least 48 hours’ prior notice to counsel, and awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including his bus fare to Massachusetts.

Holdings

  1. The district-of-confinement rule for a habeas petition is not subject-matter jurisdictional; it concerns personal jurisdiction or venue, and the Government may waive objections based on that rule.
  2. Respondents violated the court's January 28, 2026 order by releasing Sintuj in Youngstown, Ohio instead of returning him to Maine.
  3. Respondents violated the court's order, but the violation was not in bad faith; an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs was an appropriate sanction.
  4. Sintuj was to remain released on personal recognizance subject to standard conditions, and Respondents could not re-detain him without providing at least forty-eight hours' prior notice to his counsel.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court had authority to adjudicate Sintuj's habeas petition despite Respondents' contention that he had left the District of Maine before filing.
  2. Whether Respondents violated the court's January 28, 2026 order by releasing Sintuj in Youngstown, Ohio rather than returning him to Maine.
  3. Whether Respondents' violation was in bad faith and what sanction was appropriate.
  4. Whether Sintuj should remain released and whether Respondents could re-detain him without advance notice to counsel.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004)(followed)
  • AccuSoft Corp. v. Palo, 237 F.3d 31, 47 (1st Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983)(followed)
  • Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Mullane v. Chambers, 333 F.3d 322, 338 (1st Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Estate of McIntyre v. United States, 739 F. Supp. 2d 70, 75 (D. Mass. 2010)(followed)
  • DuPont v. Meserve, No. 2:25-cv-00593-JAW(mentioned)
  • Jean Dupont v. Hamilton Meserve, No. 2:25-cv-00593-JAW(mentioned)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…