Heredia Paredes v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
LORITZA HEREDIA PAREDES
AS NEXT FRIEND OF
ANDY LABRADA ARGIBAY,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1174
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
OPINION
Loritza Heredia Paredes initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of Andy Labrada Argibay (Petitioner), a United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently detained at the North Lake
Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan. (Pet., ECF No. 1.)1 For the
following reasons, the Court will deny 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, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas
1 Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for immediate release or, in the alternative, for a
bond hearing and request to maintain current custody location (ECF No. 2). Because the Court will
deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without
prejudice as set forth herein, Petitioner’s pending motion is moot.
Case 1:26-cv-01174-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 1
of 6

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.2.)
In an order entered on April 15, 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. 6.) Respondents filed their response on April 16, 2026. (ECF No.
7.)
II. 	Next Friend Status
As a preliminary matter, the Court must determine whether Loritza Heredia Paredes may
proceed as “next friend” of Petitioner. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be in writing
and “signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his
behalf,” known as a “next friend.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163
(1989). “A ‘next friend’ does not himself become a party to the habeas corpus action in which he
participates, but simply pursues the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real
party in interest.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163 (citations omitted). Next friend status, therefore, is
an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which states: “In all courts of the United States the parties may
plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,
respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
To act on a detainee’s behalf, a putative next friend must demonstrate that the detainee is
unable to prosecute the case on her own behalf due to “inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or
other disability” and that the next friend is “truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on
whose behalf he [or she] seeks to litigate.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163–64 (citations omitted); see
West v. Bell, 242 F.3d 338, 341 (6th Cir. 2001); Franklin v. Francis, 144 F.3d 429, 432 (6th Cir.
1998). The Whitmore Court noted that the next friend might demonstrate her dedication to the
Case 1:26-cv-01174-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 2
of 6

3
“best interests” of the real party in interest by showing “some significant relationship” with that
party. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. The putative next friend must clearly establish “the propriety of
his status” in order to “justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. (citations omitted). Standing to
proceed as next friend on behalf of a prisoner “is by no means granted automatically to whomever
seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Id. at 163.
“[A] next-friend may not file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a detainee
if the detainee himself could file the petition.” Wilson v. Lane, 870 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th Cir. 1989)
(citing Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 1978)). The putative next friend “must clearly
and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy the[] Art[icle] III standing requirements”
because “[a] federal court is powerless to create its own jurisdiction by embellishing otherwise
deficient allegations of standing.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155–56 (citation omitted). Most
significantly, “when the application for habeas corpus filed by a would be ‘next friend’ does not
set forth an adequate reason or explanation of the necessity for resort to the ‘next friend’ device,
the court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition.” Weber, 570 F.2d at 514; see Whitmore,
495 U.S. at 163.
In this action, reviewing the pleadings and attached documents, the Court concludes that
Loritza Heredia Paredes, Petitioner’s wife, has satisfied the foregoing requirements. Accordingly,
the Court will permit Loritza Heredia Paredes to proceed as next friend to Petitioner.
III. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Cuba who entered the United States in 2022 without
inspection. Op., Labrada-Agribay v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1448 (W.D. Mich Dec. 2, 2025) (ECF
No. 6). On September 24, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. Id.
Petitioner filed his first § 2241 petition in this Court on November 13, 2025, in Labrada-
Agribay. On Labrada-Agribay, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
Case 1:26-cv-01174-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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.,
Labrada-Agribay, No. 1:25-cv-1448 (W.D. Mich Dec. 2, 2025) (ECF No. 6, 7).
On December 8, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). Bond
Order, Labrada-Agribay, No. 1:25-cv-1448 (W.D. Mich Dec. 9, 2025) (ECF No. 8-1). At the
conclusion of that hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request
for bond, stating: “Respondent is a flight risk as he has an Order of Removal from the United States
with any appeal due by December 31, 2025.” Id.
While Petitioner’s first § 2241 case was pending, on December 1, 2025, an Immigration
Judge ordered Petitioner removed to Cuba. (Removal Order, ECF No. 7-1, PageID.135.) Petitioner
filed an appeal of that decision, which remains pending. (Filing Receipt for Appeal, ECF No. 7-2,
PageID.138.) 2
Petitioner subsequently sought a second custody redetermination hearing (Motion for
Custody Redetermination, ECF No, 7-3, PageID.142–147), which was denied by the Detroit
Immigration Court on February 11, 2026 (Feb. 2, 2026, Order, ECF No. 7-4, PageID.149.)
IV. 	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
2 Petitioner is not subject to a final order of removal and, with it, mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). For the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), a removal order “shall become
final upon the earlier of (i) a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such
an order; or (ii) the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such
order by the Board of Immigration Appeals.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B).
Case 1:26-cv-01174-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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).
V. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s present § 2241 petition, as relief, Petitioner asks the Court to order
Respondents to conduct a bond hearing or, alternatively, to release Petitioner from custody. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Prior to initiating this action, Petitioner had a bond hearing in the Detroit
Immigration Court, and on December 8, 2025, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request
for bond. Bond Order, Labrada-Agribay, No. 1:25-cv-1448 (W.D. Mich Dec. 9, 2025) (ECF No.
8-1).
Although in the present § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that his detention generally
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Petitioner does not raise any
constitutional claims regarding the December 2025 bond hearing. (See generally Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Indeed, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition does not mention the December 2025 bond hearing. (See id.)
Under these circumstances, because Petitioner received a bond hearing, which is the relief that he
seeks in his § 2241 petition, and Petitioner does not raise any claims regarding the bond hearing
itself in the present action, it appears that the present § 2241 petition is moot. Therefore, the Court
will dismiss the action without prejudice.3
3 Petitioner is free to challenge the nature of the bond hearing; however, any such challenge raises
new claims that were not raised in Petitioner’s original § 2241 petition and which are not presently
before the Court. If Petitioner wishes to file a new § 2241 petition raising claims regarding the
December 2025 bond hearing, Petitioner may do so by filing a new action with the applicable
filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Case 1:26-cv-01174-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 5
of 6

6
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	April 28, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01174-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 6
of 6