Ortiz Baquedano v. Putra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSE ORTIZ BAQUEDANO,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW PUTRA et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2669
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 counseled 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 the 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. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.19, 20.) In an order entered on September 29, 2026,
the Court directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas
corpus should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording
of the July 15, 2026, bond hearing on October 2, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of July 15,
Case 1:26-cv-02669-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 1
of 3

2
2026, Bond Hearing, filed on Oct. 2, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on October 5, 2026. (ECF
No. 6.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection.
(Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.55.) On July 4, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by
ICE. (2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.61.)
On July 15, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Resp., ECF
No. 5, PageID.42, 43; Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-7.) During the instructions given in
Petitioner’s hearing, the immigration judge stated, “It is your burden to prove that you are not a
danger to the community and you are not a flight risk and therefore entitled to a bond.” (Recording
of July 14, 2026, Bond Hearing, ECF No. 5-5, at 1:58–2:07, filed on Oct. 2, 2026.) At the
conclusion of the July 15, 2026, hearing, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for
bond because “[Petitioner] is a flight risk. [Petitioner] has a low likelihood of relief in the United
States.” (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-7, PageID.71.)
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). Therefore, for the reasons 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.
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.
Case 1:26-cv-02669-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge, at which time the government will have 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 practicable, no later than 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.
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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
October 14, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-02669-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 3
of 3