govinfo:USCOURTS-miwd-1_26-cv-01742-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
______ 
 
JAIME ENRIQUE MURCIA MORAN, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
UNKNOWN PARTY, 
 
Respondent. 
____________________________/ 
 
 

 
Honorable Jane M. Beckering 
 
 
 
 
 
OPINION 
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently 
detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility in Battle Creek, Calhoun County, Michigan, 
initiated this action by filing a pro se 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 Respondent 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.7.) In an Order entered on June 2, 2026, the Court directed 
Respondent to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not 
Case 1:26-cv-01742-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 1
of 3
 
2 
 
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondent filed a response and a recording of the December 10, 
2025, bond hearing on June 5, 2026, (Resp., ECF N o. 5; Recording of Dec. 10, 2025, Bond 
Hearing, filed on June 5, 2026). 
II. Factual Background 
Petitioner entered the United States in 2016. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) On August 26, 
2025, ICE arrested Petitioner. (Id., PageID.4.) 
On November 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention 
without a bond hearing in Torres-Vasquez v. Raycraft (Torres-Vasquez), No. 2:25-cv-13571 (E.D. 
Mich.). In Torres-Vasquez, the Court granted Petitioner’s petit ion for a writ of habeas corpus 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondent to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2025, or, in the alternative, immediately release 
Petitioner from custody. Op. & Order, Torres-Vasquez, (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2025), (ECF No. 10). 
On December 10, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). 
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.32.) At the conclusion of the December 10, 2025, 
hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge denied Petit ioner’s request for bond, stating: 
“Bond is denied because respondent failed to show he was not a flight risk.” (Id.) 
III. Analysis 
Respondent argues 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 Respondent’s 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-01742-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 2
of 3
 
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. 
Conclusion 
The Court will order Respondent to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 
before an immigration judge, at which time the government will ha ve the burden to demonstrate 
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business days and with 
notice to the Parties as soon as pr acticable, no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, 
or, in the alternative, immediately release Pe titioner from custody. The Court will also order 
Respondent to file a status report within six business days of the date of this Court’s Opinion and 
Judgment to certify compliance w ith this Opinion and the corre sponding Judgment. The status 
report shall include if and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond wa s 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-01742-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 3
of 3

Passage view · GavelSight