Mumladze v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
NODARI MUMLADZE,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1228
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 a 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.
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.21–22.)
Case 1:26-cv-01228-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 1
of 3

2
In an order entered on April 17, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause, within
three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 7.)
Respondents filed their response and a recording of the February 6, 2026, bond hearing on April
21, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 8; Recording of Feb. 6, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 21, 2026),
and Petitioner filed his reply later that same day, (ECF No. 9).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Georgia who entered the United States in 2023. (See Resp., ECF
No. 8, PageID.272–273.) On January 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his
initial detention without a bond hearing in Mumladze v. Noem (Mumladze I), No. 1:26-cv-18 (W.D.
Mich.). In Mumladze 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.,
Mumladze I, (W.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2026), (ECF Nos. 9, 10).
On February 6, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Feb. 6,
2026, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 2-1.) At the conclusion of the February 6, 2026, hearing,
the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “did not establish
he is not a flight risk.” (Id., PageID.26.)
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, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
Case 1:26-cv-01228-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before a neutral 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
April 23, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01228-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 3
of 3