govinfo:USCOURTS-miwd-1_26-cv-01770-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
______ 
 
MOHAMED BANEMOU, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
UNKNOWN PARTY et al., 
 
Respondents. 
____________________________/ 
 
 

 
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 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, he challenges th e 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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.9.) In an Order entered on June 9, 2026, the Court directed 
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not 
Case 1:26-cv-01770-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 1
of 4
 
2 
 
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the April 1, 
2026, bond hearing on June 9, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Apr. 1, 2026, Bond Hearing, 
filed on Jun. 1, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on June 12, 2026, (ECF No. 6). 
II. Factual Background 
Petitioner is a citizen of Mauritania who en tered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF 
No. 1, PageID.3); Op., Mohamed Banemou v.Unknown Party (Banemou I ), No. 1:26-cv-866 
(W.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2026) (ECF No. 6.). On February 16, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE 
in Chicago. Op., Banemou I (ECF No. 6). 
On March 17, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 peti tion challenging his initial detention 
without a bond hearing in Banemou I. In Banemou I, 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 a lternative, immediately release Petitioner from 
custody. Op. & Jud., Banemou I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2026) (ECF Nos. 6, 7). 
On April 1, 2026, Petitioner received a bond he aring pursuant to § 1226(a). (Bond Order, 
ECF No.1-2, PageID.14.) At the conclusion of that hearing, the immigration judge denied 
Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to show he is not a flight risk.” (Id.) 
III. Analysis 
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, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026). Ther efore, for the reas ons 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. 
Case 1:26-cv-01770-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 2
of 4
 
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. 
V. Proper Respondents 
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent 
in this action. They seek the dismissal of the other named Re spondents. The Court concludes 
that the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the reasons set 
forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. 
Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); 
Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 
2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 
12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, 
at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding habeas relief 
will bind at least one Respondent wi th authority to act in the even t that Petitioner is transferred 
outside the area under the authority of the ICE Detroit Field Office, the Court will retain all of the 
remaining Respondents. 
Conclusion 
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond 
hearing before an immigration judge, at whic h time the government w ill have the burden to 
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convin cing evidence, within five business 
days and with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable, no later th an 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. 
Case 1:26-cv-01770-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 3
of 4
 
4 
 
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: June 16, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckerin
g 
Jane M. Beckering 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
Case 1:26-cv-01770-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 4
of 4

Passage view · GavelSight