Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Alberto C.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and Peter Berg,
Director, St. Paul Field Office
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-380 (DWF/SGE)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Alberto C.M.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (“the Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed an answer, asserting
authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Doc. No. 5.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Court grants the petition and orders Respondents to release Petitioner
immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who currently resides in the state of Minnesota.
(Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 16; Doc. No. 6 ¶ 4.) He entered the country with a valid H2B visa on
March 11, 2022, and has lived in the United States since then. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 8, 24-25;
Doc. No. 6 ¶ 4.) Petitioner was arrested by federal immigration agents between 1:00 and
2:00 p.m. on January 8, 2026 in St. Paul, Minnesota, as part of Operation Metro Surge.
CASE 0:26-cv-00380-DWF-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 7

2
(Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 16, 27-28; Doc. No. 6 ¶ 5.) At the time of his arrest, Petitioner was not
served an arrest warrant. (See Doc. No. 1 ¶ 16; Doc. No. 6-1.) Following his arrest,
Petitioner was brought to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
detention center at Fort Snelling. (See Doc. No. 6 ¶ 5; Doc. No. 6-1.) While at Fort
Snelling, Petitioner was served with a Form I-200, a Warrant of Arrest form used by
federal immigration agents. (See Doc. No. 6-1.)
A few hours after his arrest, ICE agents brought Petitioner to Fairview Southdale
Hospital (“Fairview”) in Edina, Minnesota, for evaluation of apparent head injuries.
(Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 32.) Following a CT scan, doctors at Fairview diagnosed Petitioner
with the following life-threatening injuries: skull fractures to the right frontal, temporal,
parietal, occipital, sphenoid, and orbital bones and zygomatic arch and left temporal
bone; and epidural, subdural, subarachnoid, intracerebral, and intraparenchymal
hemorrhages. (Id. ¶ 32.) Given the severe nature of his injuries, Petitioner was
transferred to Hennepin County Medical Center (“HCMC”) for enhanced care. (Id.) 1
Although Petitioner was initially able to communicate with hospital staff, his condition
has declined, and he is now experiencing difficulty communicating verbally. (Id. ¶ 33.)
The cause of Petitioner’s injuries is still unknown. Hospital records reflect that
Petitioner told Fairview staff that he was dragged and mistreated by federal agents. (Id.
¶¶ 3, 33.) ICE agents have largely refused to provide information about the cause of
1 	Respondents contend that Petitioner was brought directly to HCMC, not to
Fairview. (Doc. No. 6 ¶ 6.) The Court does not make a final factual determination on
this point because this fact is nondispositive.
CASE 0:26-cv-00380-DWF-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Petitioner’s condition to hospital staff and counsel for Petitioner, stating only that “he got
his shit rocked” and that he ran headfirst into a brick wall. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 35, 36.)
Despite requests by hospital staff, ICE agents have refused to leave the hospital,
asserting that Petitioner is under ICE custody. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 37.) Two agents have been
present at the hospital at all times since January 8, 2026. (Id.) ICE agents used handcuffs
to shackle Petitioner’s legs, despite requests from HCMC staff that he not be so
restrained. (Id. ¶ 38.) Petitioner is now confined by hospital-issued four-point restraints
in an apparent compromise between the providers and agents. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Prior to this case, ICE had not provided any explanation for Petitioner’s arrest or
continued detention. (See id. ¶¶ 1, 6-7.) Counsel for Petitioner made multiple attempts to
discover the basis for Petitioner’s detention, including filing a form G-28 Notice of Entry
of Appearance and multiple calls to the ICE Field Office. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 39.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 16, 2026, requesting his immediate release
from ICE custody. (Id. at 20.) Petitioner asserts that his detention violates his
substantive and procedural due process rights, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Accardi
doctrine. (Id. ¶¶ 55-75.) He also asked the Court to prohibit Respondents from
(1) transferring him from this District, or (2) discharging or otherwise involuntarily
removing him from HCMC against medical advice or without the valid consent of
Petitioner or the Court. (Id. at 20.) The Court granted that request on January 17, 2026.
(Doc. No. 3.)
Respondents filed an answer on January 20, 2026, arguing that Petitioner is
properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Doc. No. 5.) Respondents filed a
CASE 0:26-cv-00380-DWF-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 7

4
declaration from ICE Deportation Officer William J. Robinson with their answer. (Doc.
No. 6.) Robinson states that Petitioner was in the middle of the intake process to initiate
removal proceedings when it was determined he had a head injury and needed to be taken
to the hospital. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.) The intake process has not been completed to this day,
fifteen days after his initial arrest. (See id. ¶ 7.)
DISCUSSION
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149,
1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents assert authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Doc.
No. 5 at 2.) Petitioner responds that detention under § 1226 is unlawful because his arrest
was made without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion. (Doc. No. 8 at 3.)
The Court agrees with Petitioner. While a Form I-200 was issued, that form was
not issued until after his arrest and initial detention. “Issuance of a warrant is a necessary
condition to justify discretionary detention under section 1226(a).” Cristian Z. v. Bondi,
No. 26-cv-157, 2026 WL 123116, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026) (citation modified); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (“On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, [a noncitizen]
may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the [noncitizen] is to be
CASE 0:26-cv-00380-DWF-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 7

5
removed from the United States.”). Thus, ICE does not have authority to detain a
noncitizen under § 1226 who was arrested without a warrant. See Cristian Z., 2026 WL
123116, at *2 (collecting cases). The proper remedy for this kind of violation is release
from custody, not a bond hearing. See, e.g., Joaquin Q.L. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-233,
2026 WL 161333, at *2-3 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the
Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to release Petitioner immediately. ICE
agents must leave HCMC and remove any restraints that were imposed against hospital
recommendation.
Even if a warrant served after arrest and detention was sufficient, Petitioner’s
continued detention clearly violates the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V. Freedom from physical
detention by the government is “the most elemental of liberty interests.” Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 529 (2004). Civil detention violates the Due Process Clause
unless there is a “special justification” that “outweighs the individual’s constitutionally
protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (citation
modified).
When a noncitizen is arrested without a warrant, ICE must make a custody
determination and decide whether to issue a notice to appear within 48 hours, unless there
is some kind of emergency or extraordinary circumstance. 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) (2026).
In the event of an emergency, that determination needs to “be made within an additional
reasonable period of time.” Id. Petitioner’s hospitalization likely qualifies as an
CASE 0:26-cv-00380-DWF-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 7

6
emergency, but fifteen days is not a reasonable period of time under these circumstances.
See Marin v. Noem, No. 25-cv-9343, 2025 WL 3158094, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2025)
(discussing what reasonable period of time means when the petitioner is hospitalized).
Respondents have provided no explanation of why the intake process cannot be
completed while Petitioner is hospitalized or why fifteen days is a reasonable period of
time. Instead, Respondents assert that the process will be completed once Petitioner has
recovered. Respondents have not issued a notice to appear or otherwise commenced
removal proceedings. Petitioner is a limbo stage with no other method for challenging
his detention. This independently violates the Due Process Clause.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner’s current detention is unlawful
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately.
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, the Government shall
provide the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
CASE 0:26-cv-00380-DWF-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 7

7
5. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 23, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00380-DWF-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 7