Mondale Thorpe v. Raycraft et al

1:26-cv-01314Miwd19.05.2026

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ALICIA MONDALE THORPE,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1314
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a former United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee,
initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.1 (Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of her current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
ordering Respondents to release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)
On April 24, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss this matter because Petitioner
had already filed a § 2241 petition challenging her detention which was pending in Mondelus v.
1 Petitioner was one of thirteen petitioners named in the § 2241 petition. In an Order entered on
April 22, 2026, the Court severed the claims of the petitioners into thirteen separate actions. (Order,
ECF No. 4.) Petitioner’s claims proceed in the present action.
Case 1:26-cv-01314-JMB-SJB ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 1
of 4
2
Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-1206 (W.D. Mich.).2 (Mot., ECF No. 6; Br., ECF No. 7, PageID.65.) In the
alternative, Respondents requested that the instant case be consolidated with Mondelus. (Mot.,
ECF No. 6; Br., ECF No. 7, PageID.67.) On May 1, 2026, Respondents submitted a status report,
which stated that Petitioner was removed from the United States to Jamaica on April 30, 2026, and
that Petitioner was no longer in the custody of Respondents. (Status Report., ECF No. 10,
PageID.72.) In this status report, Respondents again requested that the Court dismiss this case.
(Id.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
In Mondelus, the Court summarized the relevant factual background as follows:
Petitioner is a citizen of Jamaica who entered the United States in 1996 on an H4
visa for a temporary period not to exceed June 7, 2005. Petitioner remained in the
United States following the expiration of her visa.
On January 15, 2026, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. A bond hearing was held by
the Detroit Immigration Court on January 30, 2026, at which time an Immigration
Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating, “Danger and flight risk.”
Thereafter, on April 3, 2026, Petitioner was “granted pre-conclusion voluntary
departure under the [INA] in lieu of removal.”
Op., Mondelus, (W.D. Mich Apr. 28, 2026), (ECF No. 1, PageID.64) (citations omitted).
III. 	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
2 The Petitioner’s surname in Mondelus v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-1206 (W.D. Mich.), is not
identical to Petitioner’s surname in the instant petition, but other identifying facts, such as
Petitioner’s “A number,” are identical, indicating that the petitioner in both cases is the same
person. (see Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2); Pet., Mondelus, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2026), (ECF No. 1).
Indeed, although Petitioner’s name in the instant case is listed as “Alicia Mondale Thorpe,” her
signature on the petition appears to say “Alicia Mondelus.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2, 8.)
In Mondelus, the Court denied Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice because Respondents
conceded that Petitioner’s detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Op. & J., Mondelus, (W.D.
Mich. Apr. 28, 2026), (ECF Nos. 10, 11).
Case 1:26-cv-01314-JMB-SJB ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 2
of 4
3
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).
“Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to
adjudicate only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v.
United States, 158 F.4th 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Mokdad v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 167, 169
(6th Cir. 2017)). “Part of what Article III requires is that there be a live case or controversy—
‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. (some internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). “When
the 	case-and-controversy 	requirement 	is 	not 	satisfied, 	federal 	courts 	lack 	subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Mokdad, 876 F.3d at 170.)
IV. 	Analysis
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, as relief, Petitioner asks the Court to order Respondents to
release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) After initiating this action, Petitioner
was removed from the United States to Jamaica and is no longer in Respondents’ custody. (Status
Report., ECF No. 10, PageID.72.)
Because the relief sought in Petitioner’s § 2241 petition related to her detention, and she is
no longer detained by Respondents, it appears that the present § 2241 petition is moot. Therefore,
the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.3
3 The resolution of this case, as set forth in this Opinion, moots Respondents’ pending motion to
dismiss.
Case 1:26-cv-01314-JMB-SJB ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 3
of 4
4
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment dismissing Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	May 19, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01314-JMB-SJB ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 4
of 4

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.