Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MARC LAMONIER,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 4:26-cv-225-AW-MAF
ALLAN CROSBY, JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR, et al.,
Respondents.
_______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Marc Lamonier initiated this case by filing a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF Nos. 1, 7. He seeks a bond hearing.
Shortly before he filed his petition, the Eleventh Circuit decided Hernandez Alvarez
v. Warden, which held that “unadmitted aliens found in the interior of the United
States are eligible for bond while they go through immigration proceedings.” 175
F.4th 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 2026). Based on Hernandez Alvarez, the magistrate
judge issued a report and recommendation concluding the court should grant relief.
ECF No. 11. Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded the court should order that
the government either provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing
pursuant to § 1226(a) within seven days or release him.
In its response to Lamonier’s petition, the government raised entry fiction to
suggest he should be “treated as an individual stopped at the threshold of the border.”
Case 4:26-cv-00225-AW-MAF Document 13 Filed 06/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
ECF No. 9 at 5, 7. The report and recommendation, although not directly addressing
entry fiction, hews close to Hernandez Alvarez’s statutory construction, concluding
that case controls because Lamonier is no longer an “arriving alien seeking entry at
the border,” and was instead apprehended “within the interior.” ECF No. 11 at 4
(emphasis added) (quoting Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1276).
Neither party filed any objection to the report and recommendation. Cf. Evans
v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1257 (11th Cir. 2017) (reviewing report and
recommendation for plain error where parties “fail[] to object to a magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations in an R&R”). After review, I now adopt the report and
recommendation and incorporate it into this order. The government has not clearly
shown the entry fiction doctrine applies under these circumstances. See Cabrera
Martinez v. Marich, 816 F. Supp. 3d 356, 368-69 (W.D.N.Y. 2025) (distinguishing,
among other cases, Leng May Ma, which “did not address what happens when a
noncitizen accrues time inside the country after parole expires”); see also, e.g.,
Torres v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 2026 WL 947955, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Apr.
8, 2026) (concluding “the expiration of § 1182 parole does not require treating the
noncitizen as if they had never been paroled in the first place” and collecting cases).
The Petition (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED in part. Within seven days, the government
must provide the bond hearing or release Petitioner.
The clerk will close the file.
Case 4:26-cv-00225-AW-MAF Document 13 Filed 06/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED on June 26, 2026.
s/ Allen Winsor
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00225-AW-MAF Document 13 Filed 06/26/26 Page 3 of 3