Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
J.S.M. 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:26-cv-30-CDL-AGH
: 	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Warden, STEWART DETENTION 	:
CENTER, et al., 	:
:
Respondents. 	:
_________________________________
ORDER
Petitioner is a detainee at the Stewart Detention Center awaiting removal
proceedings. 	Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief based on Respondents’ refusal to
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing and the opportunity for pre-removal release
while the removal proceedings are pending. 	Respondents contend that Petitioner’s
detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and/or 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court reviewed Petitioner’s application. 	The Court finds that Petitioner is
currently detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and therefore not subject to mandatory
detention as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).1 	See J.A.M. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-
342-CDL, 2025 WL 3050094 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2025); P.R.S. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-
1 To the extent that the parties make arguments based on a belief that Petitioner is a member of the
“Bond Eligible Class” certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025
WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), any membership in that class has no effect on the Court’s decision
for several reasons. 	First, only the named petitioners sought habeas relief in Maldonado Bautista.
Second, the named petitioners did not seek nationwide habeas relief. Third, in granting declaratory relief,
the California District Court correctly noted that habeas relief could only be afforded to class members
who were located within the boundaries of the Central District of California. Id. at *14 (citing Rumsfeld
v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446 (2004) for the proposition that “habeas jurisdiction lie[s] ‘in only one district:
the district of confinement’”).
Case 4:26-cv-00030-CDL-AGH Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 2

330-CDL, 2025 WL 3269947 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2025). 	Accordingly, Petitioner’s
application for habeas corpus relief is granted to the extent that Respondents shall
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing to determine if the Petitioner may be released
on bond under § 1226(a)(2) and the applicable regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1 &
1236.1.2
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of January, 2026.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2 The brevity of this order is appropriate given that the issue presented is exactly the same as the issue
previously decided on numerous occasions by the Court and yet Respondents insist upon denying the
relief that the Court has found is required.
Case 4:26-cv-00030-CDL-AGH Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 2