Gutierrez Herrera v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
OSCAR DANILO GUTIERREZ
HERRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-691
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 conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, he 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) In an Order entered on March 5, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on March 9, 2026
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on March 12, 2026 (ECF No. 5).
Case 1:26-cv-00691-JMB-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/13/26 Page 1
of 3

2
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Nicaragua. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1, PageID.60.) Petitioner entered the United States on November 12,
2021, at an unknown location without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3; NTA, ECF No. 4-
1, PageID.60.) On July 12, 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Petitioner a
Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an immigrant “present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place
other than as designated by the Attorney General.” and “who, at the time of application for
admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (NTA,
ECF No. 4-1, PageID.60.)
On August 17, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. (I-213, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.65.)
Petitioner filed his first habeas corpus action on December 18, 2025. See Gutierrez Herrera v.
Raycraft (Gutierrez Herrera I), No. 1:25-cv-1835 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2025). On February 2,
2026, the Court entered an opinion and judgment, requiring Respondents to provide Petitioner with
a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Gutierrez Herrera I, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2026)
(ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On 	February 	9, 	2026, 	the 	Detroit 	Immigration 	Court 	held 	the 	required 	custody
redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and denied Petitioner’s request for bond because
Petitioner “has not established he is not a flight risk.” (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-3,
PageID.68.)
I. 	Discussion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
Case 1:26-cv-00691-JMB-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/13/26 Page 2
of 3

3
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (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.
II. 	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.
Conclusion
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, within five business
days and with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to the
scheduled hearing, 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.
Dated: 	March 13, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00691-JMB-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/13/26 Page 3
of 3