Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
M.A.D.M., 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:26-cv-00118-CDL-CHW
: 	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Warden, STEWART DETENTION 	:
CENTER, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
_________________________________
ORDER
Petitioner 	is 	a 	detainee 	at 	the 	Stewart 	Detention 	Center
awaiting removal proceedings. 	Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief
based 	on 	Respondent’s 	refusal 	to 	provide 	Petitioner 	with 	a 	bond
hearing and the opportunity for pre-removal release while the removal
proceedings 	are 	pending. 	Respondent 	contends 	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
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
Case 4:26-cv-00118-CDL-CHW Document 7 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 2

3050094 	(M.D. 	Ga. 	Nov. 	1, 	2025); 	P.R.S. 	v. 	Streeval, 	No. 	4:25-CV-
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 Respondent 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 29th day of January, 2026.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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’”).
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 Respondent insists upon denying the relief that the Court has found
is required.
Case 4:26-cv-00118-CDL-CHW Document 7 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 2