Gomez Damian v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JESUS RODRIGO GOMEZ DAMIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1437
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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 counseled1 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
Petitioner initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness
of his current detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action and
issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.25–26.) In an order entered on April 17, 2026, the Eastern District of Michigan
1 The Court grants Petitioner’s counsel permission to practice in this specific case on a temporary
basis pending full admission. See W.D. Mich. LGenR 2.2.
Case 1:26-cv-01437-PLM-PJG ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 1
of 6

2
ordered Respondents to respond to the petition by April 20, 2026, and ordered Petitioner to file
any reply within three business days after Respondents filed their response. (Order, ECF No. 6.)
On April 20, 2026, Respondents filed their response (ECF No. 7) and a motion to dismiss or to
transfer. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner filed his replies on April 21, 2026, and April 23, 2026, (ECF
Nos. 9, 10.) Subsequently, on May 1, 2026, the Eastern District of Michigan granted Respondents’
request regarding transferring the case and transferred the action to this Court. (Order, ECF
No. 11.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 7-2, PageID.208.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2005 without inspection.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.)
On February 15, 2026, ICE arrested and detained Petitioner after Petitioner was observed
making a U-turn. (Id., PageID.8.) At that time, ICE 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 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. 7-2,
PageID.208, 211.)
On April 2, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court held a custody redetermination hearing,
and at the hearing, the Immigration Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s
custody redetermination request. (Apr. 2, 2026, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 7-4.) Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-01437-PLM-PJG ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 2
of 6

3
was scheduled for a master calendar hearing on April 27, 2026, in the Detroit Immigration Court.2
(Case Information, ECF No. 7-5.)
III. 	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).
IV. 	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,
2 The parties do not provide any other information about the April 27, 2026, hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-01437-PLM-PJG ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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).3
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, and may attend hearings with an immigration
judge.
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).
V. 	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.
3 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, and Avila v. Bondi, 170
F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026), which was recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit. At this time, these non-binding cases do not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-01437-PLM-PJG ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 4
of 6

5
VI. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that Petitioner has failed to name a proper Respondent in this action.
The Court concludes that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is a proper Respondent and also 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 Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
States Secretary of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office
for Immigration Review as Respondents.
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,
Case 1:26-cv-01437-PLM-PJG ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 5
of 6

6
immediately release Petitioner from custody.4 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 United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Dated: 	May 6, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
4 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 1:26-cv-01437-PLM-PJG ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 6
of 6