Acevedo Acevedo v. Unknown Party

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
FELIX ALBERTO ACEVEDO ACEVEDO,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1746
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action by filing a 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 the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Discussion
I. Procedural History
The habeas petition challenges the lawfulness of Petitioner’s current detention and asks the
Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering
Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the
requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) In an order entered on June 2, 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. 3.)
Respondents filed their response on June 5, 2026, (ECF No. 4.)
Case 1:26-cv-01746-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/12/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Nicaragua. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) Petitioner was
admitted to the United States on July 1, 2008, as a nonimmigrant B-2 visitor for pleasure with
authorization to remain in the United States until December 21, 2008. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No.
4-1, PageID.67.) Petitioner remained in the United States after that time. (Id.)
On December 2, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner following Petitioner’s release from
the custody of local law enforcement on charges of driving while license suspended and failure to
appear. (Id.) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has charged Petitioner with being
removable under “Section 237(a)(1)(B)-(overstay).” (Id.)
On May 14, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court provided Petitioner with a bond hearing.
(Bond Order, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.71.) At that time, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s
request for bond, stating: “The court finds the respondent is a flight risk. The respondent failed to
appear for criminal court in 2025.” (Id.)
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-
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
Case 1:26-cv-01746-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/12/26 Page 2
of 4

3
(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. Analysis
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.7.) 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.
(Bond Order, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.71.)
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 May 14, 2026, bond hearing. (See generally Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Indeed, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition does not mention the May 14, 2026, bond hearing. (See id.)
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 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
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
bond hearing, Petitioner may do so by filing a new action with the applicable filing fee or an
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Case 1:26-cv-01746-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/12/26 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: June 12, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01746-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/12/26 Page 4
of 4