Diaz Salcido v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSE DIAZ SALCIDO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-772
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.8.)
In an order entered on March 11, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on March 16, 2026.
Case 1:26-cv-00772-JMB-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/02/26 Page 1
of 4

2
(ECF No. 4.) On March 18, 2026, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to
file his reply, (Motion, ECF No. 5), which the Court granted. (Order, ECF No. 6.) Petitioner filed
his reply on March 23, 2026. (ECF No. 7.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) On November 14, 2025,
Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention without a bond hearing in Salcido
v. Raycraft (Salcido I), No. 1:25-cv-1453 (W.D. Mich.). In Salcido I, the Court conditionally
granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five
business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately
release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Salcido I, (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2025), (ECF Nos. 10,
11).
On December 10, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) At that hearing, “[c]ounsel for the Petitioner provided extensive
documentation regarding the Petitioner’s non-existent flight risk nor dangerousness to the
community, as he has no crimes and is married to an United States Citizen for an extensive period
of time and has pending relief before the Immigration Court.” (Id.) Petitioner contends that
Respondents “provided zero evidence” at that hearing. (Id.) At the hearing, the Department of
Homeland Security argued that Petitioner had “not met his burden.” (Recording of Dec. 10, 2025,
Bond Hearing, at 5:51–6:01, filed on Mar. 16, 2026.)
At the conclusion of the December 10, 2025, hearing, the Immigration Judge denied
Petitioner’s request for bond and found that Petitioner had not shown that Petitioner was not a risk
of flight. (Id., at 8:50–8:53, 11:37–11:42.) In a written order, the Immigration Judge memorialized
Case 1:26-cv-00772-JMB-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/02/26 Page 2
of 4

3
that decision, stating that Petitioner “has not demonstrated that he is not a risk of flight.”
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.27.)
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, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
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.
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
Case 1:26-cv-00772-JMB-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/02/26 Page 3
of 4

4
denied, and if bond was granted, the conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for
the denial.
Dated: 	April 2, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00772-JMB-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/02/26 Page 4
of 4