Murcia Moran v. Unknown Party

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JAIME ENRIQUE MURCIA MORAN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY,
Respondent.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1742
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility in Battle Creek, Calhoun 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.) 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 Respondent 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.7.) In an Order entered on June 2, 2026, the Court directed
Respondent to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-01742-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 1
of 3

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondent filed a response and a recording of the December 10,
2025, bond hearing on June 5, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Dec. 10, 2025, Bond
Hearing, filed on June 5, 2026).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner entered the United States in 2016. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) On August 26,
2025, ICE arrested Petitioner. (Id., PageID.4.)
On November 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Torres-Vasquez v. Raycraft (Torres-Vasquez), No. 2:25-cv-13571 (E.D.
Mich.). In Torres-Vasquez, the Court granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondent to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2025, or, in the alternative, immediately release
Petitioner from custody. Op. & Order, Torres-Vasquez, (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2025), (ECF No. 10).
On December 10, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.32.) At the conclusion of the December 10, 2025,
hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
“Bond is denied because respondent failed to show he was not a flight risk.” (Id.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondent argues 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 Respondent’s arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 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.
Case 1:26-cv-01742-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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 Respondent 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
Respondent 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.
Dated: 	June 16, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01742-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 3
of 3