A.B.E. v. Warden, Irwin County Detention Center, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION A.B.E., □ Petitioner, .

V. Case No. 7:25-cv-195-WLS-AGH 28 U.S.C. § 2241 | Warden, IRWIN COUNTY □ DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents. _ ORDER Petitioner is a detainee at Tiwin County Detention Center awaiting removal proceedings. and the Opportunity for ‘pte-temoval “release “while ‘the temoval: proceedings ‘are pending, : oS Respondents contend that Petitioner's detention is ‘mandatory undet § USC g 1225(b)(1) □ and/or 8 U.S.C. § 12252).

The Coutt reviewed Petitiones’s application. The Court finds that Petitioner is curteritly □ 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), See JLALM, Steeval, No. 4:25-CV-342-CDL, 2025 WL 3050094 (M.D.

Ga. Nov. 1, 2025); PRS. Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-330-CDL, 2025 WL 3269947 (MD. Ga. Nov.

24, 2025). Accordingly, Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus tclief is gtanted exteint □ that. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond heating within SEVEN (7) DAYS to : □□□ “Also before the Court is Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5), arguing in part that this case should be dismissed or stayed in light of Petitioner’s membership in the “Bond Eligible Class” certified in Maldonado Batista », Santacriy, No. 5:25-CV 01 873-S8S-BFM, 2025.

WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). Respondents later withdrew that motion (ECF No. 6) in part, dropping their claim that the case should be dismissed or stayed based ori mensbership in the Maldonado Bautista class,' but maintaining that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and because they contend that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). As for Respondents’ remaining grounds for dismissal, they acknowledge that the holdings in {M4 and P.R.S. would control the result in this case were the Court to follow the rationale in those decisions. Because the Court adopts the rationale of those decisions, Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 5), to the extent it was not withdrawn, is DENIED.” .

IT IS SO ORDERED, this G@Z%day of January 2026.

W.LOUISSANDS” Chet oe MIDDLE DISTRICTOFGEORGIA. =.

Petitioner's membership. in the Maldonado Baufixta class has. no.etfect-on the Coutt’s decision for several reasons. pes First, only the named petitioners sought habeas relief in Ada/dovado Bautista. Second, the named petitioners didnot nationwide habeas relief. . Third, in granting declaratory relief, the California District Court correctly □□□□□ - that habeas relief could only be afforded to class members who were located within the boundaries ofthe □□□□□□□ District of California. Id. at *14 (citing Rimsjeld v, Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446 (2004) for the proposition that “habeas. jurisdiction lie[s] ‘in only one district: the district of confinement”).

2 The brevity of this order is appropriate piven that the issue presented exactly the same.as the isgue previously decided on nuimerous occasions by the Court and yet Respondents insist upon deriying the relief that the Court □ has found is required.