Ghoulam filed the habeas petition on April 3, 2026, seeking release or a bond hearing from his detention at the Calhoun County Correctional Center. Respondent Kevin Raycraft filed a response on April 10 asserting the lawfulness of the detention.
Four days later, Ghoulam’s counsel filed a Notice of Dismissal without prejudice, invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to permit unilateral dismissal before an answer or motion for summary judgment was served.
Judge Jonker noted that while Rule 41 applies in habeas proceedings, its terminology is designed for ordinary civil actions with plaintiffs and defendants, not habeas petitioners and respondents. The court observed that respondents in habeas cases do not typically invoke Rule 56, creating ambiguity over whether the rule’s literal text applies.
The judge expressed concern that the dismissal might not reflect Ghoulam’s true intent, noting that the DHS Online Detainee Locator System showed the petitioner remained in ICE custody as of April 15. This suggested no change in the incentive to seek relief less than two weeks after filing.
Additionally, the Notice of Dismissal misidentified the court as the Northern District of Ohio. Judge Jonker suggested this error indicated possible clerical confusion among counsel, a risk heightened by the surge of immigration detention proceedings filed in the district.
The court set a deadline of April 23, 2026, for further submissions. The parties may file a stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) if they agree, or Ghoulam may re-assert his right to unilateral dismissal using a corrected caption and supporting legal statement.