Garcia Gonzalez v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
YANIEL GONZALEZ GARCA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-773
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained, 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 for lack of
jurisdiction. The Court will also dismiss Petitioner’s motion to consolidate cases (ECF No. 4).
Discussion
I. 	Relevant Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Cuba, who entered the United States on January 12, 2023. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) On December 14, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE agents. (Id.) He
was originally detained at North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan. (Id.) However, he
was transferred first to Louisiana, and then to Florence, Arizona, Port Isabel, Texas, and back to
Florence, Arizona, before being “in transit” at the time that he filed his petition. (Id., PageID.7, 9.)
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas
Case 1:26-cv-00773-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 1
of 3

2
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering
Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.25.)
II. 	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).
“District courts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’”
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). “The plain language
of the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging
present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id.
at 443.
III. 	Discussion
On its face, the petition makes clear that Petitioner was not confined within this District at
the time of filing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7, 9.) The ICE Detainee Locator System indicates that
Petitioner is presently confined in the Mahoning County Jail, located in Youngstown, Ohio. See
Online 	Detainee 	Locator 	System, 	https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search 	(enter 	“A-Number”
244348603; enter “County of Birth,” Cuba, select “Search by A-Number”) (last accessed Mar. 11,
2026). Therefore, because this District is not “the district of confinement,” this Court lacks
Case 1:26-cv-00773-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 2
of 3

3
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and will dismiss the petition
without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 442.
Petitioner has also filed a motion to consolidate this case with Case No. 2:26-cv-10797,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. (ECF No. 4.) In his
motion, Petitioner acknowledges that “[t]his case was filed with the Western District in error, and
due to the urgent nature of the situation, a case was also filed in the Eastern District of Michigan.”
(Id., PageID.61–62.) Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition, the Court will also
dismiss Petitioner’s motion to consolidate cases.
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 for lack of
jurisdiction. The Court will also enter an order dismissing Petitioner’s motion to consolidate cases
(ECF No. 4).
Dated: March 11, 2026
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
Case 1:26-cv-00773-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 3
of 3