# Opinion

> District Court, M.D. Florida · June 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11371818

## Case

- **Full name:** Jose Luis Paredes Peraza v. Warden, Florida Soft Side South Detention Center, U.S. Attorney General
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** June 23, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11371818

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11371818. Public record. Not legal advice.