Sabillon v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
______
MARINA SABILLON
AS NEXT FRIEND OF
GUSTAVO ENRIQUE LOPEZ
CARDONA,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 2:26-cv-40
Honorable Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Marina Sabillon initiated this action on February 23, 2026, by filing a pro se petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and complaint for emergency injunctive relief
on behalf of her husband, Gustavo Enrique Lopez Cardona (Petitioner), a United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently detained at the Chippewa County
Correctional Facility in Sault Ste. Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan. (Pet., ECF No. 1), as well
as a motion to appoint next friend (ECF No. 4), an emergency motion for a temporary restraining
order (ECF No. 3), and a motion to declare detention authority unlawful (ECF No. 5). 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. The Court will also grant Petitioner’s motion to appoint next
friend (ECF No. 4) and motion for an extension of time to file a reply (ECF No. 10). The Court
will accept Petitioner’s reply (ECF No. 11) as timely filed. The Court will dismiss Petitioner’s
emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3) and motion to declare detention
authority unlawful (ECF No. 5) as moot.
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 1
of 9

2
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering
Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.7.) With the petition, Petitioner also filed a motion to appoint next friend (ECF No. 4),
an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3), and a motion to declare
detention authority unlawful (ECF No. 5).
In an order entered on February 24, 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. 8.) Respondents filed their response on February 27, 2026,
(ECF No. 9.) On March 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply
(ECF No. 10), as well as a reply (ECF No. 11).
II. 	Motion to Appoint Next Friend
Petitioner has filed a motion seeking to allow Marina Sabillon to serve as next friend of
Petitioner and to authorize alternative service due to detention-based litigation barriers. (ECF No.
4.) In the motion, Ms. Sabillon explains that “Petitioner’s detention imposes substantial barriers to
meaningful litigation, including: delays in legal mail delivery; restricted access to counsel
communication; and limited legal resources.” (Id., PageID.35; Sabillon Decl., ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.39.) Ms. Sabillon further explains that she is Petitioner’s wife and is dedicated to
protecting his best interests. (ECF No. 4; PageID.36; Sabillon Decl., ECF No. 4-1, PageID.39–
40.)
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 2
of 9

3
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be in writing and “signed and verified by the
person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf,” known as a “next friend.”
28 U.S.C. § 2242; Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1989). “A ‘next friend’ does not
himself become a party to the habeas corpus action in which he participates, but simply pursues
the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real party in interest.” Whitmore, 495
U.S. at 163 (citations omitted). Next friend status, therefore, is an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1654,
which states: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases
personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and
conduct causes therein.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
To act on a detainee’s behalf, a putative next friend must demonstrate that the prisoner is
unable to prosecute the case on his own behalf due to “inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or
other disability” and that the next friend is “truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on
whose behalf he [or she] seeks to litigate.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163–64 (citations omitted); see
West v. Bell, 242 F.3d 338, 341 (6th Cir. 2001); Franklin v. Francis, 144 F.3d 429, 432 (6th Cir.
1998). The Whitmore Court noted that the next friend might demonstrate his dedication to the “best
interests” of the real party in interest by showing “some significant relationship” with that party.
Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. The putative next friend must clearly establish “the propriety of his [or
her] status” in order to “justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. (citations omitted). Standing to
proceed as next friend on behalf of a prisoner “is by no means granted automatically to whomever
seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Id. at 163.
“[A] next-friend may not file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a detainee
if the detainee himself could file the petition.” Wilson v. Lane, 870 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th Cir. 1989)
(citing Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 1978)). The putative next friend “must clearly
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 3
of 9

4
and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy the[] Art[icle] III standing requirements”
because “[a] federal court is powerless to create its own jurisdiction by embellishing otherwise
deficient allegations of standing.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155–56 (citation omitted). Most
significantly, “when the application for habeas corpus filed by a would be ‘next friend’ does not
set forth an adequate reason or explanation of the necessity for resort to the ‘next friend’ device,
the court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition.” Weber, 570 F.2d at 514; see Whitmore,
495 U.S. at 163.
In this action, the Court concludes that the justice system is inaccessible to Petitioner, who
is presently detained in an ICE detention facility. Moreover, based upon the filings with this Court
and attached documents, Ms. Sabillon, the wife of Petitioner, has demonstrated both a significant
relationship with Petitioner, and that she is truly dedicated to acting in Petitioner’s best interests.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 4) and allow Ms. Sabillon to
proceed as next friend to Petitioner.
III. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 9-1,
PageID.91.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2020 at or near McAllen, Texas, without
inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; NTA, ECF No. 9-1, PageID.91.) In 2024, Petitioner filed
an application for asylum, and he was issued employment authorization in 2025. (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.6; I-213, ECF No. 9-2, PageID.98.)
On October 3, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by a Border Patrol Agent. (I-213, ECF No. 9-
2, PageID.98.) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently issued Petitioner a
Form 	I-862, 	NTA, 	charging 	Petitioner 	with 	inadmissibility 	under 	§§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) 	and
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an
immigrant “present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 4
of 9

5
United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General,” and “who,
at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or
travel document].” (NTA, ECF No. 9-1, PageID.91–94.) On December 19, 2025, the Detroit
Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request for a custody redetermination hearing for lack of
jurisdiction. (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 9-4, PageID.103.)
IV. 	Habeas Corpus 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).
V. 	Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents argue
that Petitioner should pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable decision to
the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and
even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the
alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s
exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
2025 WL 3562651, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-
1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 5
of 9

6
cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
VI. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner
is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents, 	however, 	contend 	that 	Petitioner 	meets 	every 	element 	for 	detention 	under
§ 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
The Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as
Petitioner, who have resided in the United States and were already within the United States when
apprehended and arrested for the reasons set forth in the Court’s statutory analysis in each of the
following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *3–6 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *4–6
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577,
at *4–7 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-
cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).1
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received notice
of the charges against him, has access to counsel, may attend hearings with an immigration judge,
1 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which was
recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. At this time, this non-
binding case does not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 6
of 9

7
has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained by ICE for a
relatively short period of time.
The Court concludes that Petitioner’s current detention under the mandatory detention
framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process rights
for the reasons set forth in the Court’s constitutional analysis in each of the following cases:
Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *7–8 (W.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *7–9 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025
WL 3558128, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
VII. 	Pending Motions, 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
and will dismiss Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3) and
motion to declare detention authority unlawful (ECF No. 5) as moot.
On March 5, 2026, Petitioner also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply
(ECF No. 10), as well as a reply (ECF No. 11). For the reasons set forth by Petitioner, the Court
will grant Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply (ECF No. 10) and will accept
Petitioner’s reply as timely filed.
VIII. 	Proper Respondent
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of any other named Respondent. The Court concludes
that the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the reasons set
forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v.
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 7
of 9

8
Raycraft, 	No. 	1:25-cv-1669, 	2025 	WL 	3562651, 	at *8–9 	(W.D. 	Mich. 	Dec. 	12, 	2025);
Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec.
12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128,
at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). Accordingly, the Court will retain the Secretary for the
Department of Homeland Security as a Respondent.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The
Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within five business days of the date of this Court’s opinion and judgment 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.2 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. The Court will further
grant Petitioner’s motion to appoint next friend (ECF No. 4) and motion for an extension of time
to file a reply (ECF No. 10) and will dismiss Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary
2 This Court has adopted a standard practice of requiring such a hearing within five business days,
even if the Petitioner requests a deadline that is shorter or longer or only release.
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 8
of 9

9
restraining order (ECF No. 3) and motion to declare detention authority unlawful (ECF No. 5) as
moot.
Dated: March 6, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00040-HYJ-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 9
of 9