Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
RONAL AVIDAI RUANO FLORES,
Petitioner,
vs.
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
et al.,
Respondents.
0:26-CV-1678
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petitioner is a noncitizen currently detained by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner contends their detention is unlawful due to denial
of a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1) and 1236.1(d)(1). See
filing 1. The government responds that detention is mandatory, not
discretionary, and the petitioner is not eligible to be released. See filing 6.
The briefing demonstrates that the petitioner's application for the writ
only presents issues of law—and the government does not dispute this point,
see filing 6 at 2—so the Court declines to hold a hearing. See § 2243. The Court
will grant the petition for the reasons thoroughly articulated by this Court in
Velasco Hurtado v. Bondi, No. 0:26-CV-546, 2026 WL 184884 (D. Minn. Jan.
24, 2026). The government shall immediately—if necessary—return the
petitioner to the state of Minnesota and release the petitioner from custody.
The government has suggested there may be an administrative warrant
for the petitioner's arrest, but that it's unable to produce the warrant at this
time. See filing 6 at 1. The existence of a warrant matters, because it's the
warrant that triggers 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a). If arrested pursuant to a warrant,
the petitioner would be entitled to a bond hearing; if not arrested pursuant to
a warrant, the petitioner is entitled to outright release. See Velasco Hurtado v.
CASE 0:26-cv-01678-JMG-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Bondi, 2026 WL 184884, at *6 (citing Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-4711,
2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (collecting cases)).
But nothing has been shown. "Habeas corpus" may literally mean "have
the body," but in the present context it really means "have the warrant," and
all the Court has is hearsay from an unnamed ICE functionary. What the brief
filed by the government's counsel establishes is only that he asked his client
for proof that the petitioner was detained lawfully, and his client was unable
to provide it to him. The Court is neither obliged nor inclined to invite a further
response, see Fontenot v. Crow, 4 F.4th 982, 1058 (10th Cir. 2021), given that
the entire purpose of the return is to set up the facts warranting denial, see
Gladden v. Gidley, 337 F.2d 575, 578 (9th Cir. 1964) (citing Walker v. Johnston,
312 U.S. 275 (1941)).
In short, the government was expressly directed to address whether the
petitioner was arrested pursuant to a warrant and, if so, to provide a copy of
that warrant. See filing 2 at 2. Without it, outright release is the appropriate
remedy. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1) is granted.
2. The government shall, if necessary, immediately return the
petitioner to the District of Minnesota.
3. When the petitioner is in Minnesota, the government shall
immediately release the petitioner from custody with no new
conditions, and shall return any personal property seized
from the petitioner when detained.
4. No later than March 4, 2026, the government shall file a
CASE 0:26-cv-01678-JMG-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
status report certifying compliance with this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01678-JMG-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 3