Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
J.H.E.L., et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
WARDEN, STEWART
DETENTION CENTER, et
al.,
RESPONDENTS.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NOS.
4:25-cv-402
4:25-cv-404
4:25-cv-405
4:25-cv-406
4:25-cv-407
4:25-cv-408
4:25-cv-409
4:25-cv-411
4:25-cv-421
4:25-cv-422
4:25-cv-426
4:25-cv-429
4:25-cv-430
4:25-cv-431
4:25-cv-433
4:25-cv-435
4:25-cv-436
4:25-cv-437
4:25-cv-439
4:25-cv-440
4:25-cv-441
4:25-cv-443
4:25-cv-445
4:25-cv-446
4:25-cv-448
4:25-cv-449
4:25-cv-450
4:25-cv-451
4:25-cv-452
4:25-cv-453
4:25-cv-455
4:25-cv-458
4:25-cv-459
4:25-cv-460
4:25-cv-461
4:25-cv-465
4:25-cv-467
4:25-cv-468
4:25-cv-469
4:25-cv-472
4:25-cv-473
4:25-cv-475
4:25-cv-505
4:25-cv-506
O R D E R
Petitioners 	are 	detainees 	at 	the 	Stewart 	Detention 	Center
awaiting removal proceedings. 	They seek habeas corpus relief based
on 	Respondents’ 	refusal 	to 	provide 	them 	with 	a 	bond 	hearing 	and
the 	opportunity 	for 	pre-removal 	release 	while 	the 	removal
proceedings 	are 	pending. 	Respondents 	contend 	that 	Petitioners’
detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and/or 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2). 	The above captioned cases involve common questions
of 	law 	and 	fact. 	Therefore, 	they 	are 	consolidated 	pursuant 	to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
The Court reviewed each Petitioner’s application. 	The Court
finds 	that 	each 	Petitioner 	is 	currently 	detained 	under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 	and 	therefore 	not 	subject 	to 	mandatory
Case 4:25-cv-00422-CDL-AGH Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
detention 	as 	required 	by 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1225(b)(2).1 	See 	J.A.M. 	v.
Streeval, 	No. 	4:25-CV-342-CDL, 	2025 	WL 	3050094 	(M.D. 	Ga. 	Nov. 	1,
2025); 	P.R.S. 	v. 	Streeval, 	No. 	4:25-CV-330-CDL, 	2025 	WL 	3269947
(M.D. 	Ga. 	Nov. 	24, 	2025).2 	Accordingly, 	each 	Petitioner’s
application for habeas corpus relief is granted to the extent that
Respondents 	shall 	provide 	each 	Petitioner 	with 	a 	bond 	hearing 	to
determine 	if 	the 	Petitioner 	may 	be 	released 	on 	bond 	under
§ 1226(a)(2) and the applicable regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1
& 1236.1.3
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of January, 2026.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1 To the extent that the parties make arguments based on a belief that
any 	Petitioner 	is 	a 	member 	of 	the 	“Bond 	Eligible 	Class” 	certified 	in
Maldonado 	Bautista 	v. 	Santacruz, 	No. 	5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 	2025 	WL
3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), any membership in that class has no
effect 	on 	the 	Court’s 	decision 	for 	several 	reasons. 	First, 	only 	the
named petitioners sought habeas relief in Maldonado Bautista. 	Second,
the named petitioners did not seek nationwide habeas relief. 	Third, in
granting 	declaratory 	relief, 	the 	California 	District 	Court 	correctly
noted 	that 	habeas 	relief 	could 	only 	be 	afforded 	to 	class 	members 	who
were located within the boundaries of the Central District of California.
Id. at *14 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446 (2004) for the
proposition that “habeas jurisdiction lie[s] ‘in only one district: the
district of confinement’”).
2 	In 	most 	of 	the 	above-captioned 	cases, 	Respondents 	filed 	motions 	to
dismiss 	the 	habeas 	petitions 	but 	later 	withdrew 	or 	partially 	withdrew
those motions. 	The motions that 	were not withdrawn 	seek dismissal on
grounds that the Court rejected in J.A.M. and P.R.S. 	The present motions
to dismiss are denied for the reasons set forth in J.A.M. and P.R.S.
3 The brevity of this order is appropriate given that the issue presented
is exactly the same as the issue previously decided on numerous occasions
by the Court and yet Respondents insist upon denying the relief that the
Court has found is required.
Case 4:25-cv-00422-CDL-AGH Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 2