govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_26-cv-00450-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
Baltazar Guerra Carrillo, 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
 v. 
 
Department of Homeland Security, et al., 
 
 Respondents. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
 

 
 
Judge Susan J. Dlott 
 
 
Order Granting Habeas Petition and 
Denying as Moot Motion to Dismiss
 
 This matter is before the Court on the Petit ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas 
Petition”) filed by Petitioner Baltazar Guerra Carrillo. (Doc. 1.) Federal Respondents filed a 
Return of Writ. (Doc. 9.) 
 Also pending before the Court is the unopposed Motion to Dismiss filed by the Butler 
County Sheriff Richard K. Jones. (Doc. 8.) 
I. 
 Guerra Carrillo, a citizen of Mexico, chal lenges his detention without a bond hearing at 
the Butler County, Ohio Correctional Complex in the custody of Federal Respondents. He 
asserts that he first entered the United States in or about 1996. (Doc. 1 at PageID 4; Doc. 9-1 at 
PageID 49–50.) Immigration records show that he voluntarily returned to Mexico four times 
between 1997 and 2001. (Doc. 9-1 at PageID 50.) He re-entered the United States in 2001. 
(Doc. 9-2 at PageID 52.) He filed an Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment 
of Status for Non-Permanent Residents on November 6, 2013, but his removal proceedings 
remain pending. (Doc. 1 at PageID 5; Doc. 9-3 at PageID 56–57.) 
 Guerra Carrillo has b een detained by ICE since April 9, 2026. (Doc. 1 at PageID 4.) He 
Case: 1:26-cv-00450-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 05/14/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
 
applied for a bond hearing, but the Immigration Judge denied his request stating that he “lack[ed] 
jurisdiction.” (Doc. 1 at PageID 25.) 
 Guerra Carrillo asserts in his Habeas Petition that he is being unlawfully held and denied 
a constitutionally adequate custody redetermination hearing—a bond hearing—in a 
misapplication of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2)(A) and 1226(a). He asserts that his statutory 
and due process rights are being violated. (Doc. 1 at PageID 11–13.)1 
 After Guerra Carrillo filed his Habeas Peti tion, but before the Federal Respondents filed 
their Return of Writ, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on May 11, 2026 that is 
dispositive in this matter. The Sixth Circuit held that noncitizens like Guerra Carrillo, who are 
not currently seeking admission or lawful entry into the United States, are not subject to 
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(A)(2). Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, No. 25-1965, 
1969, 1978, 1982, — F.4th —, 2026 WL 1283891, at *3, 11 (6th Cir. May 11, 1973). Instead, 
such noncitizens already present in the United States are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 
entitled to a bond hearing. Id. at *3, 11, 13. 
 Federal Respondents concede that Lopez-Campos is controlling and that Guerra Carrillo 
is entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.
2 The Court holds on the authority of 
Lopez-Campos that Federal Respondents are violating Guerra Carrillo’s statutory rights under 
the INA and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by detaining him without a bond 
 
1 Guerra Carrillo also asserts that he is entitled to relief under the Suspension Clause of the United States 
Constitution. (Doc. 1 at PageID 13.) The Court need not address that claim, because it is awarding relief under the 
INA and the Due Process Clause. 
 
2 Federal Respondents suggest that Guerra Carrillo can request a bond hearing again in the immigration proceedings 
and that a bond hearing will be required. (Doc. 9 at PageID 46–47.) However, they also acknowledge that they are 
considering their options to appeal the Lopez-Campos decision. (Id. at __.) Given the uncertainty how Federal 
Respondents will proceed, the Court will rule on the pending Habeas Petition without requiring administrative 
exhaustion. 
 
Case: 1:26-cv-00450-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 05/14/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 
 
hearing. 2026 WL 1283891, at *3, 11, 13.3 
II. 
 The Habeas Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that within eleven 
days of entry of this Order, Federal Respondents shall either (1) provide Guerra Carrillo with a 
due process compliant, individualized bond redetermination hearing before an Immigration 
Judge; or (2) release Guerra Carrillo from custody. If Federal Respondents choose to provide a 
bond hearing in lieu of releasing Guerra Carrillo from custody, then: 
(1) Federal Respondents shall provide a copy of this Order to the Immigration Judge 
before any hearing; 
(2) the Immigration Judge shall have jurisdiction over the matter and be empowered 
to grant bond; 
(3) Federal Respondents shall bear the burden of persuasion to justify Guerra 
Carrillo’s continued detention and adduce clear and convincing evidence that 
Guerra Carrillo is a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See Black v. 
Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 155 (2d Cir. 2024) (setting forth evidentiary standard), 
reh’g en banc denied (Oct. 24, 2025); Soto-Medina v. Lynch, No. 1:25-CV-1704, 
— F. Supp. 3d —, 2026 WL 161002, at *9–11 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026) 
(same); Azalyar v. Raycraft, 814 F.Supp.3d 926, 935 (S.D. Ohio 2026) (same); 
and 
(4) the Immigration Judge shall consider whether less restrictive alternatives to 
detention can reasonably address the Government’s interest, as well as Guerra 
Carrillo’s “ability to pay when setting any bond amount.” M.P.L. v. Arteta, No. 
25-CV-5307, 2025 WL 2938993, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2025). 
The Court further ORDERS that within fourteen days of entry of this Order, Federal 
Respondents shall file a report informing the Court whether and when a due process compliant, 
bond redetermination hearing was held or whether and when Guerra Carrillo was released from 
 
3 This Court had reached the same conclusion in materially analogous cases prior to Lopez-Campos. See, e.g., 
Ramirez Quintana v. Lynch, 1:25-cv-919, 2026 WL 746359 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2026); Valdez Lopez v. Raycraft, 
No. 1:26-cv-68, 2026 WL 900063 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 2, 2026); Rocha Gonzalez v. Lynch, No. 1:26-cv-77, 2026 WL 
962004 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 9, 2026). To be clear, the Court would hold the same in this case even if the Lopez-Campos 
decision had not been issued. 
Case: 1:26-cv-00450-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 05/14/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 
 
custody.4 
 Finally, the Butler County Sheriff’ s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
S/Susan J. Dlott 
Susan J. Dlott 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
4 Guerra Carrillo seeks attorney fees and costs. (Doc. 1 at PageID 15.) The Equal Access to Justice Act permits a 
court to award “reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, in addition to costs which may be awarded pursuant to 
subsection (a), to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2412(b). The Court will consider a motion for attorney fees and costs filed in conformity with the procedures set 
forth in the statute and the local rules. 
Case: 1:26-cv-00450-SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 05/14/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight