Jimenez v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
LUIS MARTINEZ JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1385
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan,
initiated this action on November 6, 2025, by filing a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will
conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action, and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing for
Petitioner’s removal proceedings or release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.12–13.)
In an order entered on November 12, 2025, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within twenty-one days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their answer and response on
Case 1:25-cv-01385-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 1
of 6

2
December 3, 2025. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) Petitioner’s ten-day reply period has expired, and Petitioner
did not file a reply.
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (De Leon Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.69.)
Petitioner entered the United States in 1998 (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5) “without being inspected
and admitted or paroled by immigration officials.” (De Leon Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.69.)
Prior to Petitioner’s present detention, he resided in Illinois with his girlfriend and two United
States citizen children. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9–10.) While in the United States, Petitioner “has
maintained consistent employment” and “paid taxes.” (Id., PageID.10.)
On October 30, 2025, while Petitioner “was helping a friend jump start his car” in Illinois,
United States Border Patrol agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (Id.; De Leon Decl. ¶ 5,
ECF No. 5-1, PageID.69.) ICE then issued Petitioner a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, charging
Petitioner with inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA because
Petitioner “is an immigrant who is present in the United States without having been admitted or
paroled, or who arrived at a time or place not designated by the Attorney General[,] and is not in
possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (De Leon Decl. ¶ 7, ECF
No. 5-1, PageID.70.) Petitioner is “currently in removal proceedings on the detained docket before
the Detroit Immigration Court,” and he was “scheduled for a master calendar hearing on December
16, 2025.” 1 (Id. ¶ 8.)
1 The parties do not provide any other information about the December 16, 2025, master calendar
hearing.
Case 1:25-cv-01385-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 2
of 6

3
III. 	Habeas Corpus Legal Standard
The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual
detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S.
Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the power to issue
writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens in immigration-
related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A. A. R. P. v. Trump,
145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).
IV. 	Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents argue
that Petitioner should pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable decision to
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and
even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the
alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s
exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
2025 WL 3562651, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-
1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-
cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Case 1:25-cv-01385-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 3
of 6

4
V. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner
is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents, 	however, 	contend 	that Petitioner 	meets 	every 	element 	for 	detention 	under
§ 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
The Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as
Petitioner, who have resided in the United States and were already within the United States when
apprehended and arrested for the reasons set forth in the Court’s statutory analysis in each of the
following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *3–6 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *4–6
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577,
at *4–7 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-
cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).2
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received notice
of the charges against him, has access to counsel, is scheduled to attend hearings with an
2 The Court posed a series of questions to Respondents regarding the application of § 1225 to
Petitioner. (See Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 3, PageID.16–17.) Respondents provided their
answers in Exhibit B to their response. (ECF No. 5-2.) Respondents’ answers essentially repeat
the legal arguments that are set forth in their response to the petition. As set forth herein, the Court
disagrees with Respondents’ legal argument and concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A),
governs noncitizens who have resided in the United States and were already within the United
States when apprehended and arrested.
Case 1:25-cv-01385-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 4
of 6

5
immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained
by ICE for a short period time.
The Court concludes that Petitioner’s current detention under the mandatory detention
framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process rights
for the reasons set forth in the Court’s constitutional analysis in each of the following cases:
Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *7–8 (W.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *7–9 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025
WL 3558128, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
VI. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of all of the other named Respondents. The Court
concludes that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the
reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases:
Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025
WL 3558128, at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
Case 1:25-cv-01385-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 5
of 6

6
States Secretary of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States as Respondents.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The
Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within five business days of the date of this Court’s opinion and judgment or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody.3 The Court will also order Respondents to file a status
report within six business days of the date of this Court’s opinion and judgment to certify
compliance with this opinion and the corresponding judgment. The status report shall include if
and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or denied, and if bond was granted, the
conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for the denial. Further, the Court will
dismiss the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the
United States as Respondents.
Dated: 	December 18, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
3 This Court has adopted a standard practice of requiring such a hearing within five business days,
even if the Petitioner requests a deadline that is shorter or longer.
Case 1:25-cv-01385-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 6
of 6