Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MELVIN JAVIER GARCIA LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
vs. Case No. 4:26-cv-185-AW-MAF
WARDEN, LIBERTY COUNTY
SHERIFF, et al.,
Respondents.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, an immigration detainee being held at the Liberty County
Jail, filed a pro se habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 on April 17,
2026. ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges, among other claims, that his current
detention without a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) and the Due Process Clause.1 He seeks immediate release or
release on supervision.
Shortly after the petition was filed, the Eleventh Circuit published its
decision in Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. Miami, No. 25-
14065, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 1243395, at *1 (11th Cir. May 6, 2026).
1 Because the Court recommends granting relief on Petitioner's INA claim, the Court will
not address Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim. See Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668,
689 n.10 (2004) (declining to address an additional claim in a habeas petition after
granting relief on another claim because “any relief [petitioner] could obtain on that claim
would be cumulative”).
Case 4:26-cv-00185-AW-MAF Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
4:26-cv-185-AW-MAF
Respondents concede that “under the holding of Hernandez Alvarez,
[Petitioner] appears to be bond-eligible and entitled to a bond hearing before
an immigration judge.” ECF No. 7 at 11. However, they maintain the
argument that Petitioner’s detention should be mandatory “under the better
reasoning” of the dissenting opinion in Hernandez Alvarez and two contrary
opinions from the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. Id. They also argue Petitioner
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 2-10.
The § 2241 Petition
Petitioner is a citizen of Honduras. ECF No. 7-1, 7-2. He entered the
United States without admission or inspection at an unknown date and
location. Id. He has lived in the United States since 2012. ECF No. 1 at 4.
On March 26, 2026, Petitioner was encountered by the Florida Highway
Patrol during a traffic stop and taken into immigration detention. ECF No. 7-
2, 7-4. He was transported to the Liberty County Jail in Bristol, Florida, where
he has remained. He has not been given a bond hearing before an
immigration judge.
Analysis
Respondents failure to exhaust argument is premised on their
contention that Petitioner’s detention is pursuant to § 1225(b) because he is
an “arriving alien.” ECF No. 7 at 3. As explained below, the argument as to
Case 4:26-cv-00185-AW-MAF Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
4:26-cv-185-AW-MAF
the basis for detention should be rejected because it is foreclosed by
Hernandez Alvarez. Furthermore, this Court agrees with the other district
courts in Florida which have held that “exhaustion is excused because it
would be futile.” Ramos v. Warden, No. 2:26-CV-32-JES-DNF, 2026 WL
195200, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2026); Mejia v. Lyons, No. 0:26-60258-CIV,
2026 WL 914753, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2026) (“exhaustion is not required
where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists...or an administrative
appeal would be futile”); Cetino v. Hardin, No. 2:25-CV-1037- JES-DNF,
2025 WL 3558138, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2025) (“requiring [petitioner] to
make an administrative request for a bond hearing would be futile because
the result is predetermined”). Petitioner was not required to exhaust a non-
existent and futile remedy.
The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Hernandez Alvarez is binding
authority on this Court.2 Mandatory detention under Ҥ 1225 applies to
arriving aliens seeking entry at the border, whereas [discretionary detention
2 As of May 13, 2026, the issuance of the mandate was withheld. See ECF No. 76 of case
25-14065. This does not impact the opinion’s binding precedent. See Martin v. Singletary,
965 F.2d 944, 945 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (a published opinion “is the law in this circuit unless
and until it is reversed, overruled, vacated, or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court
of the United States or by [the Eleventh Circuit] sitting en banc,” and a stay of the mandate
“in no way affects the duty of...the courts in this circuit to apply now the precedent
established by” the published opinion “as binding authority”); 11th Cir. IOP—Cir. R. 36.2
(“Under the law of this circuit, published opinions are binding precedent. The issuance or
non-issuance of the mandate does not affect this result.”).
Case 4:26-cv-00185-AW-MAF Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
4:26-cv-185-AW-MAF
under] § 1226 applies to aliens unlawfully in the interior.” Hernandez Alvarez,
2026 WL 1243395, at *14. Petitioner was not an “arriving alien” who was
“seeking admission” when he was detained on March 26, 2026, as required
under § 1225; instead, he was encountered ‘in the interior’ during a traffic
stop in Florida. See 2026 WL 1243395, at *1 (holding § 1225’s no bond
provision did not apply because “neither petitioner was seeking lawful entry
into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer when he was
arrested…in fact, neither petitioner was pursuing any object, let alone lawful
entry, when he was detained following a traffic stop”). Because Petitioner is
subject to the discretionary detention provision of § 1226, he is entitled to an
individualized bond hearing.
Recommendation
For the reasons discussed, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the
28 U.S.C § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be GRANTED
in part and Respondents be required to provide Petitioner with an
individualized bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) before an Immigration
Judge within seven (7) days or, in the alternative, release Petitioner.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on May 20, 2026.
s/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00185-AW-MAF Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
4:26-cv-185-AW-MAF
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge
on appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Case 4:26-cv-00185-AW-MAF Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 Page 5 of 5