CRUZ SALAS v. TSOUKARIS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
M.S.C.S., 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
: 	CASE NO.: 7:26-CV-4 (LAG)
:
:
v.
Warden, IRWIN DETENTION
CENTER, et al., :
:
Respondents. 	:
:
ORDER
Petitioner 	is 	a 	detainee 	at 	the 	Stewart 	Detention 	Center 	awaiting 	removal
proceedings. Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief based on Respondents’ refusal to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing and the opportunity for pre-removal release while the
removal proceedings are pending. Respondents contend 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 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 Respondents shall provide Petitioner
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 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’”).
Case 7:26-cv-00004-LAG-CHW Document 5 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Leslie A. Gardner
LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 The brevity of this order is appropriate given that, despite the fact that the issue presented is exactly the
same as the issue previously decided by the Court, Respondents insist upon denying the relief that the Court
has found is required.
Case 7:26-cv-00004-LAG-CHW Document 5 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 2