Gachra v. Putra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
SARBJOT S. GACHRA,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW PUTRA et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2673
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
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.) The Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.) 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 September 16, 2026, bond hearing on October 2, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of
Case 1:26-cv-02673-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Sep. 16, 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 India who entered the United States in 2023. (Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.55.) On August 31, 2026, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. (2026 Form
I-213, ECF No. 5-6, PageID.71.)
On September 16, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No, 5-11, PageID.80.) At the conclusion of that hearing, the
immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “did not meet his burden
to demonstrate that he is not a flight risk.” (Id.)
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.
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
Case 1:26-cv-02673-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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
/s/ Jane M. Beckering	October 13, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-02673-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 3
of 3