Samuel Cruz Jimenez v. Christopher Bullock, Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, New Orlean Field Office
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee
Date FiledOctober 9, 2026
Docket2:26-cv-03341
StatusUnknown
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
)
SAMUEL CRUZ JIMENEZ,
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
CHRISTOPHER BULLOCK, Field Office ) No. 2:26-cv-03341-SHL-tmp
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs )
Enforcement, New Orlean Field Office, )
Respondent. )
)
)
ORDER STAYING TRANSFER AND REQUIRING RESPONSE
On October 8, 2026, Petitioner Samuel Cruz Jimenez filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) He challenges his continued detention without a
bond hearing. (Id. at PageID 1.) He has been a Memphis resident for twenty-one years. (Id.)
He states that “over a month ago during a mass enforcement raid,” he was arrested by ICE at a
local establishment. (Id.) He is detained at the West Tennessee Detention Facility. (Id. at
PageID 2.) He seeks, among other things, to enjoin Respondent from transferring him outside of
the Western District of Tennessee, and immediate release. (Id. at PageID 2, 8.)
On May 11, the Sixth Circuit issued the opinion in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th
713 (6th Cir. 2026), affirming that a noncitizen who has spent “significant time . . . within the
interior of the United States,” and who has not committed an offense rendering them ineligible
under § 1226(c), may not be detained without an individualized bond hearing. 175 F.4th at 734.
Upon review of the Petition, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) Within three business days of the filing of this Order, Petitioner shall deliver a
copy of the Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Tennessee electronically at the following email address: stuart.canale@usdoj.gov.
(2) Within three business days after Petitioner complies with the above requirement,
Respondent shall respond to the Petition. If the basis of Petitioner’s detention is 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2)(A) and Respondent continues to oppose release, Respondent shall either distinguish
this case from Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026), or state why Lopez-
Campos otherwise does not apply. If no such showing is made, Respondent shall state whether
he consents to the issuance of the writ.
(3) Petitioner may file a reply within three business days after Respondent’s
responsive filing.
(4) Respondent SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner out of the West Tennessee
Detention Facility during the pendency of the Petition, and if Petitioner has been transferred
since filing his Petition, Respondent is ORDERED to transfer him back to the Western District
of Tennessee at the Government’s expense.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of October, 2026.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE