United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, 2026

EERB. v. Warden, Irwin County Detention Center, et al.

EERB. v. Warden, Irwin County Detention Center, et al.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia · Decided January 6, 2026
EERB. v. Warden, Irwin County Detention Center, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION EERB., .

Petitioner, v. : Case No, 7:25-cv-2038-WLS-AGH 28US.C.§ 2241 Warden, IRWIN COUNTY : DETENTION CENTER, et al, - Respondents. oe Petitioner is. a detainee at. Irwin County Detention, Center awaiting xemoval him with a bond hearing and the opportunity for pre-removal xelease 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. Sizes).

The Court reviewed Petitioner's application. The. Court finds that Petitioner is currently detained under 3 USC. § 1226(a) and. therefore not subject to mandatory □ dotontion as required by 8 U.8.C. § 1225(b)Q). See JAM. . Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-342- □ for habeas corpus relief is granted to the extent that Respondents shall provide.

Petitioner with a bond hearing within SEVEN (1) DAYS 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 & 1236.1.12 IT IS SO ORDERED, this lay of January, 2026.

W.LOUISSANDS) U.S, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA several reasons, First, only the named petitioners sought habeas relief in Maldonado Baittisia.”” ~~ Second, the named petitioners did not seek nationwide habeas relief. ‘Third, in granting declaratory □□□□□□□ 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. Jd. 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”), □□ The brevity of this order is: appropriate given that the issue presented is exactly the same as the issue previously decided on numerous occasions by the Court and yet Respondents insist upon denying the relief that the Court has found is required.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.