Felix Alberto Acevedo Acevedo v. Unknown Party et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: June 12, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-01746
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

FELIX ALBERTO ACEVEDO ACEVEDO,

Petitioner, Case No. 1:26-cv-1746

v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou

UNKNOWN PARTY et al.,

Respondents. ____________________________/

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 dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice. 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 either ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) In an order entered on June 2, 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 June 5, 2026, (ECF No. 4.) II. Factual Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of Nicaragua. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) Petitioner was admitted to the United States on July 1, 2008, as a nonimmigrant B-2 visitor for pleasure with authorization to remain in the United States until December 21, 2008. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.67.) Petitioner remained in the United States after that time. (Id.)

On December 2, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner following Petitioner’s release from the custody of local law enforcement on charges of driving while license suspended and failure to appear. (Id.) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has charged Petitioner with being removable under “Section 237(a)(1)(B)-(overstay).” (Id.) On May 14, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court provided Petitioner with a bond hearing. (Bond Order, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.71.) At that time, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: “The court finds the respondent is a flight risk. The respondent failed to appear for criminal court in 2025.” (Id.) III. 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 the federal courts with 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). “Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to adjudicate only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v. United States, 158 F.4th 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Mokdad v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 167, 169 (6th Cir. 2017)). “Part of what Article III requires is that there be a live case or controversy— ‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. (some internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). “When the case-and-controversy requirement is not satisfied, federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Mokdad, 876 F.3d at 170.)

IV. Analysis In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, as relief, Petitioner asks the Court to order Respondents to conduct a bond hearing or, alternatively, to release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) Prior to initiating this action, Petitioner had a bond hearing in the Detroit Immigration Court, and the immigration judge issued a written decision denying Petitioner’s request for bond. (Bond Order, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.71.) Although in the present § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that his detention generally violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Petitioner does not raise any constitutional claims regarding the May 14, 2026, bond hearing. (See generally Pet., ECF No. 1.) Indeed, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition does not mention the May 14, 2026, bond hearing. (See id.)

Under these circumstances, because Petitioner received a bond hearing, which is the relief that he seeks in his § 2241 petition, and Petitioner does not raise any claims regarding the bond hearing itself in the present action, it appears that the present § 2241 petition is moot. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.1

1 Petitioner is free to challenge the nature of the bond hearing; however, any such challenge raises new claims that were not raised in Petitioner’s original § 2241 petition and which are not presently before the Court. If Petitioner wishes to file a new § 2241 petition raising claims regarding the bond hearing, Petitioner may do so by filing a new action with the applicable filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.

Dated: June 12, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou HALA Y. JARBOU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE