Caraballo Zanotty v. Unknown Party #1 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
EFRAIN JUNIOR CARABALLO
ZANOTTY,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1 et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2704
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 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF
No. 1.) Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 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.4.) In an order entered on October 1, 2026, the Court
Case 1:26-cv-02704-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 1
of 3

2
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 6.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
September 1, 2026, bond hearing on October 6, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 7; Recording of Sep. 1,
2026, Bond Hearing, filed on Oct. 6, 2026).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States in 2017. (Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 1-3, PageID.12.) On July 29, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE in
Miami. (Form I-213, ECF No. 7-4, PageID.66.)
On September 1, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) At the conclusion of the September 1, 2026, hearing, the immigration judge
denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to show he was not a danger to
property or a flight risk.” (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.9.)
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, 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.
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.
Case 1:26-cv-02704-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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
denied, and if bond was granted, the conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for
the denial.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
October 14, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-02704-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 3
of 3