The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
FREDDY HERNANDEZ MUNOZ,
Petitioner,
v. Case No.: 2:26-cv-02198-SPC-NPM
GARRETT J. RIPA et al.,
Respondents,
/
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Freddy Hernandez Munoz’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 2), the government’s response (Doc. 5), and Hernandez
Munoz’s reply (Doc. 6).
Hernandez Munoz is a native and citizen of Cuba who entered the United
States on July 17, 2022, after fleeing Cuba’s communist government. Customs
and Border Patrol apprehended him, issued a notice to appear, and released
him into the country with conditions of supervision. Hernandez Munoz
complied with the conditions, timely applied for asylum, and has no criminal
history whatsoever. On November 7, 2025, Hernandez Munoz reported to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for a check-in appointment,
and ICE detained him.
On February 11, 2026, an immigration judge pretermitted Hernandez
Munoz’s asylum application and ordered him removed to Ecuador. Hernandez
Munoz appealed, so the removal order is not administratively final.
Meanwhile, this Court granted Hernandez Munoz’s first habeas petition and
ordered the government to either bring him before an immigration judge for a
bond hearing or release him. On February 19, 2026, Immigration Judge Stuart
Siegel denied Hernandez Munoz’s request for release on bond, finding he did
not meet “his burden in establishing he is a suitable bond risk given the fact
that [Hernandez Munoz] is under an order of removal[.]” (Doc. 5-1 at 4). In a
second bond hearing on February 21, 2026, the Judge Seigel denied bond again:
After an individualized bond hearing, and after applying the 9
Guerra factors, the Court finds that Respondent while the
Respondent has some positive factors - no prior criminal matters,
family ties with status in the United States, and a work history in
the United States; the Court finds that Respondent has not met
his burden in establishing that he is a suitable bail risk largely
based on the fact that Respondent's applications for relief have
been pretermitted (case is on appeal before the Board) and poses a
substantial bail risk that cannot be ameliorated by any bond
amount, Respondent has not submitted any proof of ownership of
property, any savings in the United States, Respondent entered
the United States unlawfully, and Respondent has only been in the
United States a limited period of time in the United States. see
Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 34, 41 (BIA 2006).
(Doc. 5-1 at 6).
Hernandez Munoz argues his continued detention violates the Fifth
Amendment because it is unreasonably prolonged and does not further any
legitimate government interest. He seeks release from custody or,
alternatively, another bond hearing. In response, the government argues
Hernandez Munoz’s petition is moot because he already received two bond
hearings. The government’s mootness argument is only partially correct.
Hernandez Munoz remains in ICE detention, and his Fifth Amendment claim
challenging that detention still “presents a live controversy with respect to
which the court can give meaningful relief.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d
1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001). Hernandez Munoz’s alternative request for a bond
hearing is the only part of the case that is now moot.
Because Hernandez Munoz’s due process claim presents a live
controversy, the Court must address it. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that
“[n]o person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The government argues Hernandez Munoz is
not entitled to release because, as the Supreme Court has recognized,
“detention during [removal] proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part
of that process.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003). But the
government’s authority to detain under § 1226 is not unfettered. The Supreme
Court has also recognized that the Due Process Clause “applies to all ‘persons’
within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678,
693 (2001). It is thus “well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles
aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507
U.S. 292, 306 (1993).
Immigration detention is civil in nature, and civil detention violates the
Fifth Amendment unless “a special justification…outweighs the individual’s
constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 690 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Immigration
detention generally has two regulatory goals: “ensuring the appearance of
aliens at future immigration proceedings and preventing danger to the
community.” Id. (cleaned up).
The government’s response does not identify any justification for
Hernandez Munoz’s detention. The undisputed evidence shows that he has
diligently participated in his immigration case and has significant connections
to the United States—he lives with his U.S. citizen daughter and grandson and
had a steady job prior to his arrest. What is more, ICE arrested Hernandez
Munoz when he voluntarily appeared for an appointment related to his case.
The evidence likewise demonstrates that Hernandez Munoz is not a danger to
the community. He has no criminal record whatsoever.
In sum, Hernandez Munoz made a prima facie case that his detention
violates his Fifth Amendment liberty rights, and the government presents no
justification for his detention.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Freddy Hernandez Munoz’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)
is GRANTED.
(1) Within 24 hours of this Order, the government shall release
Hernandez Munoz and facilitate his transportation from the detention facility
by notifying his counsel when and where he can be collected.
(2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and
deadlines, enter judgment, and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 4, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1
Copies: All Parties or Record