Trujillo v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
EDMUNDO TRUJILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-308
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. § 2241.
(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 his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action, “declare that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a)—and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)—is the appropriate statutory provision that governs
Petitioner’s detention,” and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering
Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a bond hearing under § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.32–33.)
Case 1:26-cv-00308-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 1
of 4

2
In an Order entered on January 29, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on February 3, 2026
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 8, 2026 (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 4-1, PageID.48.) Petitioner was admitted to the United States at the Ysleta, Texas,
Port of Entry on June 24, 2015, “as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure with authorization to
remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed 6 months.” (NTA, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.48.) However, Plaintiff has remained in the United States since that time. (Id.; Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.2.)
On November 10, 2025, ICE agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.2.) Petitioner was scheduled for a master calendar hearing on February 9, 2026, in the
Detroit Immigration Court. (Notice of Internet-Based Hearing, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.52.)
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).
Case 1:26-cv-00308-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 2
of 4

3
IV. 	Discussion
Noncitizens “who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see, e.g.,
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).
As relief in this action, Petitioner asks the Court to “declare that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)—and
not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)—is the appropriate statutory provision that governs Petitioner’s
detention” and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents
to release Petitioner or to conduct a bond hearing under § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.32–
33.) Respondents, through counsel, acknowledge that § 1226 governs Petitioner’s present
detention because he overstayed his visa after being lawfully admitted to the United States, and
they concede that they would provide a § 1226(a) bond hearing to Petitioner if Petitioner requested
it. (Resp., ECF No. 4, Page 42–44.) There is no indication in the record presently before the Court
that Petitioner has requested a bond hearing under § 1226(a) in Immigration Court. In light of
Respondents’ concession that, if requested, Petitioner would receive § 1226(a) bond hearing,
which is the relief that Petitioner seeks in this action, the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice. 1
1 If contrary to Respondents’ concession in their brief, when Petitioner requests a bond hearing in
Immigration Court, Respondents do not in fact provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing
where the Immigration Judge concludes that he or she has jurisdiction to consider the bond
Case 1:26-cv-00308-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
request, then Petitioner would be free to file a new § 2241 petition requesting that this Court
order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing.
February 18, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00308-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 4
of 4