Ramos v. Putra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
RUBEN RAMOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW PUTRA et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2689
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 deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
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. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.8–11.)
In an order entered on September 30, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
September 15, 2026, bond hearing on October 5, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 6; Recording of Sep. 15,
Case 1:26-cv-02689-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 1
of 3

2
2026, Bond Hearing, filed on Oct. 5, 2026.) Petitioner filed his reply on October 9, 2026.
(ECF No. 7).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2006. (Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 6-1, PageID.56; Form I-213, ECF No. 6-2, PageID.62.) On August 7, 2026,
Petitioner was arrested by ICE in Pontiac, Michigan. (Form I-213, ECF No. 6-2, PageID.61.)
On September 15, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Resp.,
ECF No. 6, PageID.43.) At the conclusion of the September 15, 2026, hearing, in a written order,
the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: “Flight risk.” (Immigration
Judge Order, ECF No. 6-6, PageID.70.)
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not apply
the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on September
15, 2026. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge failed to require the
government to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See
Soto-Medina v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026) (addressing the constitutionally
required burden of proof).
Based on the record before the Court at this time, including the recording of the § 1226(a)
bond hearing, there is no indication in the record that the Immigration Judge applied an
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will
deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Case 1:26-cv-02689-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 2
of 3

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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
October 14, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-02689-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 3
of 3