Rodriguez Mendoza v. Unknown Party

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
FREDIS RODRIGUEZ MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1526
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility in Battle Creek, Calhoun County, Michigan,
initiated this action by filing a pro se 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 deny Petitioner’s petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
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
Case 1:26-cv-01526-JMB-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/03/26 Page 1
of 4

2
of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) 1
In an Order entered on May 12, 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 on May 15, 2026, (ECF No. 8),2 and Petitioner filed his reply on
May 19, 2026, (ECF No. 9).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.11.) On February 12, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner when he was leaving for work. (Id.)
On March 18, 2026, the Immigration Court ordered Petitioner’s removal from the United
States. See Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (enter “245542245” for
the A-Number, select “Colombia” for the Nationality, and select Submit) (last visited June 2,
2026), (hereinafter, “Automated Case Information Website for Petitioner’s Immigration Case”).
Petitioner had thirty days from the entry of the removal order to appeal to the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA); however, no appeal was received for the case. See id.
On April 2, 2026, during Petitioner’s appeal period, the Detroit Immigration Court held a
§ 1226 bond hearing for Petitioner, at which the Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request for
bond. (Apr. 2, 2026, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.20.)
1 Petitioner also filed several motions asking the Court to order Respondents to take certain actions
during the pendency of this action. (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5.) Because this Opinion resolves Petitioner’s
action, Petitioner’s pending motions, asking that Respondents be ordered to take certain actions
during the pendency of this action, are moot.
2 Contrary to the Court’s order in the Order to Show Cause, Respondents failed to submit a
transcript or recording of Petitioner’s bond hearing. (See Order, ECF No. 7, PageID.43.) However,
as set forth herein, the Court is able to resolve this case without the transcript or recording.
Case 1:26-cv-01526-JMB-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/03/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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. 	Analysis
As noted above, on March 18, 2026, the Immigration Court ordered that Petitioner be
removed from the United States. See Automated Case Information Website for Petitioner’s
Immigration Case. Petitioner had thirty days from the entry of the removal order to appeal to the
BIA; however, no appeal was received for the case. See id.
Following the expiration of Petitioner’s appeal period, Petitioner’s order of removal
became administratively final, and at that time, Petitioner’s detention became governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1231. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B) (setting forth that for the purposes of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), a removal order “shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a determination by
the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such an order; or (ii) the expiration of the period in
which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals”).
Section 1231 of Title 8, titled, “Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed,”
provides in relevant part that, “when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall
remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as
the ‘removal period’),” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), and that “[d]uring the removal period, the
Attorney General shall detain the alien.” Id. § 1231(a)(2)(A).
Case 1:26-cv-01526-JMB-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/03/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Here, based on the information before the Court, Petitioner is within the 90-day removal
period during which Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention. See id. § 1231(a)(1)(A); see also
id. § 1231(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, because Petitioner is within the 90-day removal period, as set
forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the Court will deny without prejudice Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, in
which Petitioner asks for a bond hearing under § 1226.3
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	June 3, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
3 If Petitioner’s circumstances change, Petitioner is free to file a new § 2241 petition challenging
his detention.
Case 1:26-cv-01526-JMB-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/03/26 Page 4
of 4