Cortez-Mendoza v. Unknown Party #1 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
EDUART CORTEZ-MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1 et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2628
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 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
Case 1:26-cv-02628-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/09/26 Page 1
of 3

2
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8, 9.)1 In an order entered on September 24, 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. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
September 2, 2026, bond hearing on September 29, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 6; Recording of Sept.
2, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on Sept. 29, 2026).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States on an unknown date.
(Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 6-2, PageID.44.) On August 3, 2026, Petitioner was arrested
by DHS. (Resp., ECF No. 6, PageID.25.) On September 2, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing
pursuant to § 1226(a). (Id., PageID.24) At the conclusion of the September 2, 2026, hearing, the
immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to show he was
not a flight risk.” (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-5, PageID.51.)
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, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 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.
1 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner also requested expedited review of the case
and requested a temporary restraining order, in which the Court ordered that certain actions be
taken during the pendency of the case. As set forth in this opinion, the Court will conditionally
grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. In light of this, the entry of the Court’s opinion and
corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s pending motions.
Case 1:26-cv-02628-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/09/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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 an 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: 	October 9, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-02628-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/09/26 Page 3
of 3