Magassaouba v. Putra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
KERFALA MAGASSAOUBA,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW PUTRA et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2660
Honorable Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action by filing a 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 the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
The habeas petition challenges the lawfulness of Petitioner’s current detention 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.7.) In an order entered on
September 25, 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. 4.) Respondents filed their response on September 30, 2026. (ECF No. 5.)
Case 1:26-cv-02660-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 1
of 5

2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is not a United States citizen. (Notice of Custody Determination, ECF No. 1-1,
PageID.15.) Petitioner entered the United States on an unknown date, and he has remained in the
United States since that time. On January 20, 2026, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.)
Respondents have not provided Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an
immigration judge as contemplated by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents indicate that Petitioner
requested a bond hearing upon his arrest, but he was not afforded a bond hearing “in error.”1
(Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.22 n. 2; Notice of Custody Determination, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.15
(indicating 	that 	Petitioner 	“request[ed] 	an 	immigration 	judge 	review 	of 	this 	custody
determination”).)
III. 	Habeas Corpus Legal Standard
The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual
detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S.
Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers upon the federal courts the power to issue
writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens in immigration-
related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A. A. R. P. v. Trump,
145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).
1 The materials submitted by the parties do not suggest that Petitioner is subject to a final order of
removal or that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
Case 1:26-cv-02660-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 2
of 5

3
IV. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Based on the facts presented by the parties, the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026), and the Respondents’
concession that Lopez-Campos applies in this case (see Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.21), the Court
concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner’s detention.2
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. In Lopez-Campos, the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals explained:
Noncitizens who have “passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled
only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed
in due process of law.” Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206,
212 (1953); see also Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100–01 (1903). Thus,
noncitizens within the interior of the United States are entitled to the protections of
the Due Process Clause, “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). “It is well
established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in
[removal] proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); see also
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003). Consequently, the government may not
deny “notice” or “an opportunity to be heard” to a noncitizen “who has entered the
country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its
population, although alleged to be illegally here.” Yamataya, 189 U.S. at 100–01.
2 As stated above, Petitioner requested a bond hearing upon his arrest, but Respondents indicate
that Petitioner was not afforded a bond hearing “in error.” (Resp., ECF No. 1, Page.22 n. 2; Notice
of Custody Determination, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.15.) In their response, Respondents concede that
Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing in Immigration Court, but they do not indicate that Petitioner
will be afforded a bond hearing now based on his prior request. (See Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.22.)
Instead, Respondents indicate that Petitioner must again ask for a bond hearing in Immigration
Court. However, Petitioner previously requested a bond hearing in Immigration Court, and
Respondents did not provide him with a bond hearing. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for a bond
hearing remains outstanding. Under these circumstances, the Court will conditionally grant the
petition as set forth herein and order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under
§ 1226.
Case 1:26-cv-02660-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 3
of 5

4
Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at 732. The Sixth Circuit therefore upheld the lower courts’
determinations the government’s detention of the Lopez-Campos petitioners “without bond under
§ 1226(a) was a deprivation of liberty that violated [their] due process rights.” Id. at 734.
Petitioner is likewise detained under § 1226(a) and has not been provided an individualized
bond hearing. Therefore, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s current detention under the
mandatory 	detention 	framework 	set 	forth 	in 	§ 1225(b)(2)(A) 	violates 	Petitioner’s 	Fifth
Amendment due process rights. See id.; see also Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025
WL 3562651, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528,
2025 WL 3562638, at *7–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-
1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *7–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
V. 	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.
VI. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action. They seek the dismissal of the other named Respondents. The Court concludes
that the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the reasons set
forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v.
Raycraft, 	No. 	1:25-cv-1669, 	2025 	WL 	3562651, 	at *8–9 	(W.D. 	Mich. 	Dec. 	12, 	2025);
Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec.
12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128,
at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding habeas relief
Case 1:26-cv-02660-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 4
of 5

5
will bind at least one Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred
outside the area under the authority of the ICE Detroit Field Office, the Court will retain all of the
remaining Respondents.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court will order
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five
business days of the date of this Court’s opinion and judgment 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.3 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: October 13, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 This Court has adopted a standard practice of requiring such a hearing within five business days,
even if the Petitioner requests a deadline that is shorter or longer or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-02660-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 5
of 5