Ramirez Cotes v. Raycraft

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JESUS DAVID RAMIREZ COTES,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT,
Respondent.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1002
Honorable Hala Y. Jarbou
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, supplement, and brief, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness
of his current detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondent to conduct a bond hearing or, alternatively, to release
Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; Em. Supp., ECF No. 2, PageID.56–57; Br.,
ECF No. 5, PageID.66.)1
1 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner also made an emergency request that he be released or
receive a prompt bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) As set forth in this opinion, after Petitioner filed this action,
he received a bond hearing, so the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice. In light
of this, the entry of the Court’s opinion and corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s pending request for
a bond hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-01002-HYJ-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 1
of 4

2
In an order entered on March 31, 2026, the Court directed Respondent 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. 7.) Respondent filed his response on April 3, 2026, (ECF
No. 8), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 9, 2026, (ECF No. 13).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Colombia. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 8-1,
PageID.94.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about February 26, 2020, at Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, “as a nonimmigrant Visitor for Pleasure with authorization to remain in the United States
for a temporary period not to exceed August 25, 2020.” (Id.)
On March 9, 2026, ICE encountered Petitioner in the United States and took him into
custody. (Form I-213, ECF No. 8-4, PageID.103.) At that time, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) 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. 8-1, PageID.94.)
On April 9, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court provided Petitioner with a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Status Rep., ECF No. 11, PageID.116; Order Immigration Judge, ECF
No. 11-1, PageID.119.) That same day, the immigration judge issued a written decision granting
Petitioner’s bond request and ordering that Petitioner be released from custody under a bond of
$4,000. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 11-1, PageID.119.)
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
Case 1:26-cv-01002-HYJ-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 2
of 4

3
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens in immigration-
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 Respondent to
conduct a bond hearing or, alternatively, to release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.2.) After initiating this action, Petitioner had a bond hearing in the Detroit Immigration
Court, and the immigration judge issued a written decision granting Petitioner’s request for bond
on April 9, 2026. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 11-1.) Under these circumstances, because
Petitioner received a bond hearing, which is the relief that he seeks in his § 2241 petition, it appears
that the present § 2241 petition is moot. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action without
prejudice.
Case 1:26-cv-01002-HYJ-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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: April 21, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01002-HYJ-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 4
of 4