Rodriguez Barrueto v. Warden Florida South Side Detention Center et al
| Adrian Rodriguez Barrueto |
| Warden Florida South Side Detention Center and US Attorney General |
| 2:2026cv00936 |
| March 30, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Sheri Polster Chappell |
| Nicholas P Mizell |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 23, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
PROOF of service - Attorney General of the United States served on 4/17/2026. (MSN)
|
|
Filing 10
JUDGMENT in favor of Petitioner against Respondent (Signed by Deputy Clerk) (MSN)
|
|
Filing 9
OPINION AND ORDER. Advian Rodriguez Barrueto's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is GRANTED. The respondent shall release Rodriguez Barrueto within 24 hours of this Order and provide him telephone access so he can arrange his transportation from the facility. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close this case. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/17/2026. (SAP)
|
|
Filing 8
ENDORSED ORDER denying Respondent Warden of Florida South Side Detention Center's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #6). "The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is the person who has custody over the petitioner." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (cleaned up). While courts have recognized that immigration detainees in state-run facilities can bring habeas claims against certain federal officials, see, e.g., Masingene v. Martin, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2020), the immediate custodian is also a proper respondent. As the immediate custodian of the petitioner, the Warden is a proper respondent to his habeas petition. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/10/2026. (SAP) Modified on 4/22/2026 (SAP).
|
|
Filing 7
RESPONSE to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by US Attorney General. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Howard-Allen, Kelley)
|
|
Filing 6
MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Warden Florida South Side Detention Center. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit "A", #2 Exhibit "B")(Meros, Nicholas) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell.
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas John Peter Meros on behalf of Warden Florida South Side Detention Center (Meros, Nicholas)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER to respond and show cause why the petition should not be granted. The Clerk is directed to serve the petition. Response to petition due by 4/9/2026. The Petitioner has 3 days to reply to the response to petition. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/2/2026. (CAW)
|
|
Filing 3
ENDORSED ORDER granting the petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #2). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell on 4/2/2026. (NMC)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Adrian Rodriguez Barrueto. (ABM) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell. (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2026: #1 Mailing Envelope) (ABM).
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Federal filed by Adrian Rodriguez Barrueto. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(ABM) (Main Document 1 replaced on 4/1/2026 to correct page orientation) (ABM). Modified text on 4/1/2026 (ABM).
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
