Rivas Palma v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
GERMAN RIVAS PALMA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1344
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 Petitioner’s 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 ordering
Respondents to release Petitioner unless Respondents provide Petitioner with a bond hearing
within seven days. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.21.)
In an order entered on April 27, 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 April 30, 2026. (ECF
No. 4.) On May 5, 2026, Petitioner filed his reply. (Reply, ECF No. 5.)
Case 1:26-cv-01344-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) Petitioner
entered the United States sometime between 1996 and 1998 and has remained in the United States
since that time. (Id.; Form I-213, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.71.) On January 31, 2026, ICE encountered
and detained Petitioner. (Form I-213, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.70.)
On February 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Palmas Rivas v. Noem et al. (Palmas Rivas), No. 1:25-cv-421 (W.D.
Mich.).1 In Palmas Rivas, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and
Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Palmas
Rivas, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 25, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On March 4, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a), and an
immigration judge (IJ) with the Detroit Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s bond request. (IJ
Order, ECF No. 4-5, PageID.82.) In a written order, the IJ found Petitioner obtained a fraudulent
identification card and was cited for driving without a license on five occasions. (Id.) In the written
order, the IJ also concluded Petitioner was a “[f]light risk and Danger.” (Id.)
III. 	Habeas Corpus 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.
1 In the initial case before this Court, the petition named “German Palmas Rivas” as Petitioner.
Pet., Palmas Rivas, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2026), (ECF No. 1). In this action, the petition names
“German Rivas Palma” as Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) For the sake of clarity, the
Court will refer to the plaintiff in each case as it was originally captioned.
Case 1:26-cv-01344-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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
(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
Noncitizens who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge. Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, Nos. 25-1965, 1969, 1978, 1982, 2026 WL 1283891 (6th Cir.
May 11, 2026). Before initiating this action, Petitioner had a § 1226 bond hearing in the Detroit
Immigration Court, and the IJ issued a written decision denying Petitioner’s request for bond on
March 4, 2026. (IJ Order, ECF No. 4-5, PageID.82.) In the IJ’s written decision, the IJ concluded,
inter alia, that Petitioner was a “[f]light risk and Danger.” (Id.)
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 March 2026 bond hearing. (See generally Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Case 1:26-cv-01344-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Indeed, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition does not mention the March 2026 bond hearing. (See id.)
Under these circumstances, because Petitioner received a bond hearing, and Petitioner does not
raise any claims regarding the bond hearing itself in the present action, the Court will dismiss the
action without prejudice as moot.2
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing the petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: June 11, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 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
April 2026 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-01344-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 4
of 4