Herrera-Moreno v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
HECTOR MIGUEL HERRERA-MORENO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-341
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 on December 16, 2025, by filing a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (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.
The Court will further deny Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) and
dismiss Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration (ECF No. 3).
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his current
detention following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him bond, and asks
the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release Petitioner
or, in the alternative, provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the
Case 1:26-cv-00341-JMB-RSK ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 1
of 4

2
burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)
In an Order entered on February 5, 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. 8.) Respondents filed their response on February 10, 2026
(ECF No. 9), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 10, 2026 (ECF No. 10).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who was admitted to the United States during the
summer of 2004 as a nonimmigrant visitor. When Petitioner lawfully entered the
United States using a border crossing card, he was 11 years old; he has remained in
the United States since entering in 2004.
See Op., Herrera-Moreno v. Unknown Party et al., 1:25-cv-01411 (W.D. Mich.) (ECF No. 20)
(internal citations omitted).
On October 27, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents arrested and
detained Petitioner. See Am. Pet., id. (ECF No. 4). On November 11, 2025, Petitioner then filed
his first habeas corpus action, seeking a custody redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
See Pet., id. (ECF No. 1).
During the pendency of Petitioner’s first § 2241 petition, the Detroit Immigration Court
heard Petitioner’s renewed custody redetermination request. See Op. id. (ECF No. 20). At the
conclusion of Petitioner’s custody redetermination hearing held on December 3, 2025, the
immigration judge denied Petitioner bond because Petitioner “did not establish he does not present
a danger or flight risk.” (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.13.)
In an opinion and judgment entered on January 13, 2026, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s
first § 2241 action for lack of jurisdiction as Petitioner received the relief he requested in his habeas
Case 1:26-cv-00341-JMB-RSK ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 2
of 4

3
petition. See Op., Herrera-Moreno, 1:25-cv-01411 (ECF No. 20); J., id. (ECF No. 21). The Court
explained:
The constitutional wrong of which Petitioner initially complained has been
remedied. The hearing required by the statute has been provided. Although
Petitioner contends that his wrongful detention continues, the wrong is a new one.
If Petitioner contends the new wrong warrants relief under § 2241, Petitioner may
commence a new § 2241 action in this Court by filing a new petition with the
applicable filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
See Op., id. (ECF No. 20). Petitioner then filed the instant case on January 30, 2026. (Pet., ECF
No. 1.)
In his instant § 2241 petition, Petitioner claims that his “continued confinement [following
the December 3, 2025, order of the immigration judge] rests on a constitutionally deficient custody
determination.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.)
III. 	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.
IV. 	Pending Motions, 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
and the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) and
dismiss Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration (ECF No. 3) as moot.
Case 1:26-cv-00341-JMB-RSK ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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, 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. The Court will further deny Petitioner’s
motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) and dismiss Petitioner’s motion to expedite
consideration (ECF No. 3).
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
February 19, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00341-JMB-RSK ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 4
of 4