Singh v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
DAMANJOT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-965
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.8.) 1 Respondents filed their response to Petitioner’s
1 Petitioner also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 4.) Because the Court
will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition as set forth herein, Petitioner’s motion for a
temporary restraining order is moot.
Case 1:26-cv-00965-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/13/26 Page 1
of 4

2
§ 2241 petition and a recording of the February 26, 2026, bond hearing on April 14, 2026. (Resp.,
ECF No. 5; Recording of Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 14, 2026.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States in 2024. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.4–5.) On December 24, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE agents. (Id., PageID.5.)
On January 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Singh v. Noem (Singh I), No. 1:26-cv-320 (W.D. Mich.). In Singh I, the
Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Singh I, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 20, 2026),
(ECF Nos. 7, 8).
On February 26, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.6.) At that hearing, Petitioner “submitted several pieces of evidence,” while “the
Government did not submit any evidence in regard to [Petitioner] being a flight risk or danger.”
(Id.) At the conclusion of the February 26, 2026, hearing, the immigration judge denied
Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
Respondent unlawfully entered the United States and has remained without
authorization. Respondent has been in the United States for a short period of time.
Respondent 	has 	not 	presented 	sufficient 	evidence 	to 	this 	Court 	regarding
employment within the United States. Respondent does not own any real property
in the United States. Respondent has minimal contacts and no immediate family
members in the United States.
The Court may consider the likelihood of success on being granted any immigration
relief. Any relief Respondent is seeking is speculative.
The Court finds that Respondent is a flight risk and therefore denies his request for
change in custody status.
Case 1:26-cv-00965-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/13/26 Page 2
of 4

3
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.33.)
III. 	Analysis
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
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.
IV. 	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.
V. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of all of the other named Respondents. The Court
concludes that the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the
reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases:
Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (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 *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the ICE Detroit Field Office Director, the Acting
Case 1:26-cv-00965-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/13/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Director of ICE, and the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The
Court will dismiss the Warden of North Lake Correctional Facility and the United States Attorney
General as Respondents.
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. Further, the Court will dismiss the Warden of North Lake Correctional Facility and the
United States Attorney General as Respondents.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
May 13, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00965-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/13/26 Page 4
of 4