Albarracin v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
DAGOBERTO ALBARRACIN,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-32
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action by filing a counseled 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 dismiss 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, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action, declare that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), is the appropriate statutory provision that governs
Petitioner’s detention and eligibility for bond, and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing or, alternatively, to release
Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.29–30.)
In an Order entered on January 8, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00032-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 1
of 4

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on January 13, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on January 24, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Colombia. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 4-1, PageID.45.) Petitioner entered the United States on August 23, 2018, “as a
nonimmigrant Visitor for Pleasure with authorization to remain in the United States for a
temporary period not to exceed February 22, 2019.” (NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.45.) On October
31, 2025, ICE encountered Petitioner in the United States and took him into custody. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.2.) At that time, ICE issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with
being removable under “Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act” because
Petitioner “remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted.” (NTA, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.45.)
Thereafter, the Detroit Immigration Court held a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and
on December 4, 2025, the immigration judge issued a written decision denying Petitioner’s bond
request because Petitioner “did not establish he is not a substantial flight risk.” (Order Immigration
Judge, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.49.) Petitioner is scheduled for a master calendar hearing in the
Detroit Immigration Court on February 10, 2026. (Notice In-Person Hearing, ECF No. 4-3.)
III. 	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-
Case 1:26-cv-00032-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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).
“Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to
adjudicate only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v.
United States, 158 F.4th 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Mokdad v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 167, 169
(6th Cir. 2017)). “Part of what Article III requires is that there be a live case or controversy—
‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. (some internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). “When
the 	case-and-controversy 	requirement 	is 	not 	satisfied, 	federal 	courts 	lack 	subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Mokdad, 876 F.3d at 170.)
IV. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, as relief, Petitioner asks the Court to order Respondents to
conduct a bond hearing or, alternatively, to release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.29–30.) Prior to initiating this action, Petitioner had a bond hearing in the Detroit
Immigration Court, and the immigration judge issued a written decision denying Petitioner’s
request for bond on December 4, 2025. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-2.)
Although in the present § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that his detention generally
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Petitioner does not raise any
constitutional claims regarding the December 2025 bond hearing. (See generally Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Indeed, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition and reply do not mention the December 2025 bond hearing.
(See id.; Reply, ECF No. 5.) Under these circumstances, because Petitioner received a bond
hearing, which is the relief that he seeks in his § 2241 petition, and Petitioner does not raise any
Case 1:26-cv-00032-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 3
of 4

4
claims regarding the bond hearing itself in the present action, it appears that the present § 2241
petition is moot. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice. 1
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment dismissing 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
1 Petitioner is free to challenge the nature of the bond hearing; however, any such challenge raises
new claims that were not raised in Petitioner’s original § 2241 petition and which are not presently
before the Court. If Petitioner wishes to file a new § 2241 petition raising claims regarding the
December 2025 bond hearing, Petitioner may do so by filing a new action with the applicable
filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering	February 5, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00032-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 4
of 4