Hana v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
SALEIM YAKO HANA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1424
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Petitioner initiated this action when he was a United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) detainee.1 (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner
challenged the constitutionality of his detention and asked the Court to order Petitioner’s
immediate release from ICE custody subject to his prior supervision conditions. (Id., PageID.7.)2
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (setting forth
that a court must promptly order an answer or grant the writ under § 2241, “unless it appears from
the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto”).
Discussion
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
1 As set forth herein, Respondents subsequently removed Petitioner from the United States.
2 The Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 2.)
Case 1:26-cv-01424-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 1
of 2

2
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).
“Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to
adjudicate only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v.
United States, 158 F.4th 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Mokdad v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 167, 169
(6th Cir. 2017)). “Part of what Article III requires is that there be a live case or controversy—
‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. (some internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). “When
the 	case-and-controversy 	requirement 	is 	not 	satisfied, 	federal 	courts 	lack 	subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Mokdad, 876 F.3d at 170.)
On May 13, 2026, Respondents notified the Court that ICE had removed Petitioner from
the United States on May 5, 2026. (See Form I-205, ECF No. 13-3, PageID.48.) Under these
circumstances, because Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, the Court will dismiss the action
without prejudice.3
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.
Dated: June 1, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 The Court’s resolution of this action, as set forth herein, moots Respondents’ pending motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 12).
Case 1:26-cv-01424-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 2
of 2