Perez-Jimenez v. Warden of Western Tennessee Detention Facility

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
MIGUEL ANGEL PEREZ-JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:26-cv-03323-SHL-tmp
v.
CHRISTOPHER BULLOCK, Field Office
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, New Orleans Field Office,
Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
On October 6, 2026, Petitioner Miguel Angel Perez-Jimenez filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 2.) He challenges “the legality and
constitutionality of [his] present physical detention” and his “continued detention without
individualized justification.” (Id. at PageID 7; ECF No. 2-2 at PageID 57.) He seeks immediate
release from Respondent’s custody, or, alternatively, an individualized bond hearing before a
neutral decisionmaker. (ECF No. 2-2 at PageID 71.) Respondent responded on October 14.
(ECF No. 7.) Respondent concedes that “this case is covered by the Sixth Circuit’s recent
decision” in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026). (Id. at PageID 83.)
For the reasons stated below, the Petition is GRANTED and Respondent is ORDERED
to immediately release Petitioner from custody.
BACKGROUND
Perez-Jimenez, a citizen of Venezuela, has resided in the U.S. since his entry through the
southern border on an unknown date. (ECF No. 2-2 at PageID 61.) Petitioner represents that he
has been a productive member of his community since entering the United States. (Id. at PageID
Case 2:26-cv-03323-SHL-tmp Document 8 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

2
62.) He remains at the West Tennessee Detention Facility. (ECF No. 7 at PageID 84.) He seeks
immediate release from Respondent’s custody. (ECF No. 2-2 at PageID 71.)
ANALYSIS
Respondent concedes that Lopez-Campos governs this matter. (ECF No. 7 at PageID
83.) Respondent maintains that “the Court should require Petitioner to exhaust administrative
remedies” before granting relief. (Id. at PageID 84.) Specifically, according to Respondent,
Petitioner should be required to first request a bond hearing in immigration court before seeking
habeas relief in federal court. (Id. at PageID 85–86.)
However, as the Court has ruled in recent immigration habeas petitions, e.g., Lopez Soza
v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-CV-02224, 2026 WL 1104329, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Apr.
23, 2026), Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies is EXCUSED. The legal
questions presented by the Petition are fit for prompt resolution, and exhaustion would be futile
because Petitioner cannot seek meaningful and timely administrative relief. McCarthy v.
Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992) (explaining that where a statute is silent as to exhaustion,
requiring exhaustion is within a court’s discretion).
Petitioner “rightfully state[s] that [he has] a liberty interest to be free from detention.”
Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at 734. ICE’s decision to detain him without a bond hearing violated
that liberty interest, which cannot be casually tossed aside. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to
immediate release. See Villafranca Lara v. Ladwig, No. 26-CV-02079, 2026 WL 401204, at *10
(W.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2026) (quoting Cardona v. Ladwig, No. 25-cv-01451, 2025 WL 3722009,
at *7) (reasoning that “because Petitioner’s rights to a bond hearing under §1226(a)” were
denied, a bond hearing after the fact “‘would not and cannot cure that constitutional violation,’”
and while Petitioner’s release today cannot cure his prior loss of liberty, “‘this remedy, relative
Case 2:26-cv-03323-SHL-tmp Document 8 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

3
to the procedural one of ordering a bond hearing, is the one that comes closest to doing so.’”)
(quoting Yao v. Almodovar, No. 25 CIV. 9982, 2025 WL 3653433, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17,
2025.)).
Therefore, consistent with Lopez-Campos and this Court’s decision in Villafranca Lara,
and after consideration of the record, the Petition is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondent is ORDERED to
immediately release Petitioner from custody. Further, Respondent is ORDERED to ensure that
Petitioner is released with his personal belongings, including all documentation he had in his
possession when taken into custody. Finally, Respondent is ORDERED to file a Status Report
with this Court within two business days, to certify compliance with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of October, 2026.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-03323-SHL-tmp Document 8 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
<pageID>