Ortiz Navarro v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
KEVIN ESTEVEN ORTIZ NAVARRO,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1462
Honorable Hala Y. Jarbou
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 pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) The Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
(ECF No. 3.) 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.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
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 to provide Petitioner with another bond hearing.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) 1
1 Petitioner also filed two motions asking the Court to order Respondents to take certain actions
during the pendency of the action and asking the Court to stay Petitioner’s transfer and removal
during the pendency of the action. (ECF Nos. 4. 5.) In this opinion, the Court resolves this action.
Case 1:26-cv-01462-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/09/26 Page 1
of 4

2
In an order entered on May 29, 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. 7.) Respondents filed their response on June 2, 2026. (ECF No. 8.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
On February 19, 2026, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s first habeas petition,
which had challenged his initial detention without a bond hearing. Op. & J., Ortiz Navarro v.
Unknown Party (Ortiz Navarro I), No. 1:26-cv-275 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2026), (ECF Nos. 10,
12). Thereafter, pursuant to the Court’s February 19, 2026, opinion and judgment, the Detroit
Immigration Court held a § 1226 bond hearing. Status Report, id., (ECF No. 13). Following the
hearing, in a written order issued on February 26, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court denied
bond, stating: “flight risk.” Order Immigration Judge, id., (ECF No. 13-1).
On 	March 	23, 	2026, 	Petitioner 	filed 	a 	second 	habeas 	petition 	challenging 	the
constitutionality of the February 26, 2026, bond hearing. Pet., Ortiz Navarro v. Unknown Party #1
(Ortiz Navarro II), No. 1:26-cv-947 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2026), (ECF No. 1). In an opinion and
judgment entered on April 20, 2026, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition without prejudice,
concluding that Petitioner must first exhaust his administrative remedies because “Petitioner’s
specific claims involve challenges to the immigration judge’s factual determinations in the bond
decision,” and “Petitioner does not argue that the procedures of the bond hearing itself violated the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Op., id., (ECF No. 15, PageID.75).
In the present action, Petitioner contends that “new evidence,” which consists of
“additional family declarations” and information about “[a] stable residence and family support,”
In light of this, the entry of this opinion and the corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s
pending motions (ECF Nos. 4 and 5.)
Case 1:26-cv-01462-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/09/26 Page 2
of 4

3
“defeats [the Immigration Court’s] flight risk finding.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2 (capitalization
changed and emphasis omitted).)
III. 	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).
IV. 	Analysis
In Petitioner’s present § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current
detention 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 to provide Petitioner with another bond
hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) In support of this requested relief, Petitioner argues that
“new evidence defeats [the Immigration Court’s] flight risk finding.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2
(capitalization changed and emphasis omitted).) Specifically, Petitioner states that he has
“additional family declarations” and “has [a] stable residence and family support.” (Id.)
In this action, Petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality of the February 26, 2026,
bond hearing. Instead, Petitioner seeks to present additional support for his bond request. However,
to the extent that Petitioner believes a change in circumstances warrants the Immigration Court’s
reconsideration of his prior bond denial, such a request must be made to the Immigration Court.
See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
Case 1:26-cv-01462-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/09/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Accordingly, because Petitioner received a § 1226 bond hearing on February 26, 2026, and
he does not challenge the constitutionality of that hearing, the Court will dismiss his claim
regarding the bond hearing.
Petitioner also presents claims regarding the conditions of his confinement at the North
Lake 	Processing 	Center. 	(See 	generally 	Pet., 	ECF 	No. 	1.) 	Although 	in 	certain 	limited
circumstances, conditions of confinement claims may be brought in habeas corpus actions,
Petitioner’s conditions of confinement claims are not properly brought in this action. If Petitioner
wishes to file a civil rights action regarding the conditions of his confinement, he is free to do so.
Because Petitioner’s claims are not properly before the Court at this time, the Court will dismiss
the petition.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing the petition
without prejudice.
Dated: June 9, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01462-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/09/26 Page 4
of 4