Taleb v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
SIDI MOHAMED TALEB,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-482
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 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, 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 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 community. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.10.)
Case 1:26-cv-00482-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 1
of 3

2
In an Order entered on February 17, 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 on February 20, 2026,
(ECF No. 6), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 24, 2026, (ECF No. 7).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mauritania who has resided in the United States since October
2024. 1 (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) On or about December 16, 2025, ICE agents arrested
Petitioner at Petitioner’s home. (Id., PageID.2.)
Petitioner requested a bond hearing, and a hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) was held in the
Detroit Immigration Court. (Order of the Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.13.) On
January 28, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court entered an order denying Petitioner’s request for
bond because “the Department of Homeland Security has proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk[.]” (Id.)
III. 	Discussion
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 et al., No. 1:25-cv-1704 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 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 The parties do not provide any additional information regarding Petitioner’s entrance into the
United States.
Case 1:26-cv-00482-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 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
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment conditionally granting
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) 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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering	February 27, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00482-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 3
of 3