Atekeng v. Raycraft, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
EDWIN ATEKENG,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1335
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 or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden
of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.16.)
Case 1:26-cv-01335-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/07/26 Page 1
of 4

2
In an order entered on April 27, 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. 4.)
Respondents filed their response and a recording of the March 13, 2026, bond hearing on April 30,
2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Mar. 13, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 30, 2026), and
Petitioner filed his reply on May 6, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Cameroon who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.5.) On October 2, 2025, ICE arrested Petitioner when he appeared for a scheduled ICE
check-in appointment. (Id.)
On February 24, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Atekeng v. Unknown Party (Atekeng I), No. 1:26-cv-631 (W.D. Mich.).
In Atekeng 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.,
Atekeng I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 10, 2026), (ECF Nos. 7, 8).
On March 13, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.4.) At the conclusion of the March 13, 2026, hearing, the immigration judge denied
Petitioner’s request for bond because: “[Petitioner] has not met his burden as to a favorable
likelihood of success on his application. The Court finds that [Petitioner] has not met his burden
to establish he is not a flight risk.” (Mar. 13, 2026, Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1,
PageID.142.)
Case 1:26-cv-01335-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/07/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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.
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
Case 1:26-cv-01335-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/07/26 Page 3
of 4

4
denied, and if bond was granted, the conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for
the denial.
Dated: 	May 7, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01335-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/07/26 Page 4
of 4