Dia v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
MOUSSA DIA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
,____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-692
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 counseled petition for 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.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner 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 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.5–6.)
In an Order entered on March 4, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00692-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 1
of 4

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on March 9, 2026
(ECF No. 6), and Petitioner filed his reply on March 12, 2026 (ECF No. 7).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Senegal who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) On December 24, 2025, Petitioner was detained by ICE. (Id.)
On January 15, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Dia v. Raycraft (Dia I), No. 1:26-cv-151 (W.D. Mich.). In Dia I, the
Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Dia I, (W.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2026), (ECF
Nos. 6, 7.).
On February 5, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1-1, PageID.9.) At that hearing, “Petitioner provided community support letters.” (Id.) In the
Order of the Immigration Judge, the Order specifically states: “Respondent has not established he
does not present a flight risk.” 	(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.9.) At the
conclusion of the February 5, 2026, hearing, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for
bond because Petitioner “present[s] a flight risk.” (Id.)
III. 	Discussion
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 et al., No. 1:25-cv-1704 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth
Case 1:26-cv-00692-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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.
V. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of all of the other named Respondents. 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. 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).
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Acting
Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss 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 an individualized bond hearing before an
Case 1:26-cv-00692-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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.
Further, the Court will dismiss the Department of Homeland Security as a Respondent.
Dated: 	March 18, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00692-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 4
of 4