Arzikulov v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ELDOR ARZIKULOV,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-472
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
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 by filing a counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 224.
(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, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering
Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.8.)
In an Order entered on February 23, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00472-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/03/26 Page 1
of 4

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on February 24, 2026
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 24, 2026 (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, charged with inadmissibility under
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4;
Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1, PageID.46.)
In January 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE agents. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)
Petitioner then filed his first § 2241 petition challenging his detention without a bond hearing in
See Arzikulov v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00147 (W.D. Mich) (Arzikulov I). In Arzikulov I, the Court
conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody. Arzikulov I, ECF Nos. 7, 8 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 3,
2026).
On February 10, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). Status
Report, Arzikulov I, ECF No. 9-1 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2026). At that hearing, the immigration
judge denied Petitioner bond because Petitioner “did not establish he is not a flight risk.” Id.
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-
Case 1:26-cv-00472-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/03/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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. 	Discussion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition on ground of
jurisdiction, exhaustion, and on the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and
Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina v. Lynch et al., No. 1:25-cv-1704 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Soto-Medina, the Court will conditionally grant
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
V. 	Other Claims and Other Forms of Relief
Because the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition as set forth herein,
the Court does not address other claims and other requested relief in Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
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 ICE Detroit 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
Case 1:26-cv-00472-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/03/26 Page 3
of 4

4
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security 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 an individualized bond hearing before an
immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to demonstrate
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence within five business days of the date
of this Judgment and with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours before
the scheduled hearing, or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. 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.
Dated: 	March 3, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00472-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/03/26 Page 4
of 4