Rolando Tabera Santos v. Warden, Florida Baker Correctional Institution, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ROLANDO TABERA SANTOS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1317-JEP-MCR

WARDEN, FLORIDA BAKER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al.,

Respondents. ___________________________________/

ORDER Through counsel, Petitioner, a detainee of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking, among other relief, an order directing Respondents to provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or alternatively, to release him. (See Doc. 1 at 8). Petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of Cuba who entered the United States on January 20, 2024. (Id. at 2–3, 16, 18). He was released on his own recognizance but subsequently re-detained on October 26, 2025. (Id. at 3–4). The Federal Respondents expressly recognize that Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. Miami, 175 F.4th 1258, 1276 (11th Cir. 2026) “controls the outcome of this matter.” (Doc. 8 at 3). Additionally, they maintain that, because “the Court may resolve the petition on the statutory question, it need not proceed to evaluate any other claims raised in the Petition.” (Id.).

This Court previously addressed claims and arguments similar to those raised in this case, concluding that the Court has jurisdiction, but the relevant statutory language and context support the Federal Respondents’ position that an alien without lawful admission who has resided in the United States for

some appreciable period of time is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Diaz Lopez v. Dir. of Enf’t of Removal Operations, 817 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2026); see also Lozano Sousa v. Ripa, No. 3:25- cv-1617-JEP-PDB, 2026 WL 958794 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2026). However, on

May 6, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals took the opposite approach on the substantive issue under the INA, concluding that “§ 1225 applies to arriving aliens seeking entry at the border, whereas § 1226 applies to aliens unlawfully in the interior.” Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1276.1 As

1 Although the mandate has not yet issued, the Eleventh Circuit’s published opinion has immediate precedential effect. See Martin v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 944, 945 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting that a published opinion “is the law in this circuit unless and until it is reversed, overruled, vacated, or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court of the United States or by [the Eleventh Circuit] sitting en banc,” and that a stay of the mandate “in no way affects the duty of . . . the courts in this circuit to apply now the precedent established by” the published opinion “as binding authority”); 11th Cir. IOP—Cir. R. 36.2 (“Under the law of this circuit, published opinions are binding precedent. The issuance or non-issuance of the mandate does not affect this result.”). mentioned above, the Federal Respondents concede that this Court is bound by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in this case. (Doc. 8 at 1, 3).

Therefore, it is ORDERED: 1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is GRANTED as to Petitioner’s claim that his detention without an individualized bond hearing violates the INA.2 Within

seven days of this Order, Respondents shall either afford Petitioner an individualized bond hearing consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or release Petitioner. If Respondents release Petitioner, they shall facilitate his transportation from the detention facility

by notifying his counsel when and where he can be collected. 2. The Warden’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED for the same reasons stated in Lanvin-Valdez v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, No. 3:26-CV-180-JEP-SJH, 2026 WL 1004569, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla.

Apr. 14, 2026). 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment granting the petition, terminate any pending motions as moot, and close this case.

2 Because the Court grants relief on Petitioner’s claim under the INA, the Court need not address Petitioner’s other claims. See Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 689 n.10 (2004) (declining to address an additional claim in a habeas petition after granting relief on another claim because “any relief [petitioner] could obtain on that claim would be cumulative”). DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on July 1, 2026.

c JORDAN E. PRATT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Counsel of Record