Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JOSE LUIS PAREDES PERAZA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:26-cv-1919-KCD-KRH

v.

WARDEN, FLORIDA SOFT SIDE

SOUTH DETENTION CENTER,

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

Petitioner Jose Luis Paredes Peraza is a citizen of Venezuela currently

detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He asks

this Court to release him, arguing that his detention without a bond hearing

violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment.

(Doc. 1.)1 As for relief, he seeks either immediate release from custody or a

bond hearing. (Doc. 1 at 14.)

Peraza has already received a bond hearing, which was denied. (See

Doc. 8-1 at 20-21.) So the Government argues that this habeas petition is now

moot. (Doc. 8.) The Court agrees, and here is why.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and

alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.

Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to resolving actual,

ongoing controversies. We do not issue advisory opinions, and we do not keep

cases on the docket when the underlying dispute has evaporated. See Al

Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 2001). When Peraza filed

his petition, his only grievance was that he had been locked up with no

mechanism for release. (Doc. 1.) But the Government has afforded Peraza the

very opportunity to contest his detention that he asked this Court to provide.

(Doc. 8-1 at 20-21.) He has thus received process. And he reserved his right to

appeal those decisions. (Id. at 21.)

The Court does not have jurisdiction to overturn the immigration

judge’s bond decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). And Peraza has avenues

available to challenge a bond determination made by the Executive Office for

Immigration Review. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(7) (allowing Board of

Immigration Appeals jurisdiction over appeals of bond determinations made

under 8 C.F.R. § 1236). He also may seek a new bond hearing before the

immigration judge if he can demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e).

The Fifth Amendment claim, where Peraza challenges the

constitutionality of his continued detention, also fails. ICE detained him on

January 19, 2026. That is short of the indefinite, limbo-like detention that

the Supreme Court has rejected under the Fifth Amendment. See Zadvydas

v. Davis, 583 U.S. 678 (2001).

Because Peraza has failed to demonstrate any violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States that is cognizable or would

necessitate his release, the habeas petition must fail. The Clerk is

DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and close the

case.

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 28, 2026.

Kyle C. Dudek oo ot

United States District Judge