US District Court WDKY Docket Feed

Hernandez v. Woosley Habeas Granted, W.D. Ky.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted Juana Yolanda Geronimo Hernandez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on April 22, 2026, holding that Section 1226 of the Immigration and Nationality Act applies to her detention rather than Section 1225. The court rejected the government's position, consistent with DHS interim guidance from July 8, 2025, that non-citizens present without admission are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225. This ruling aligns with prior decisions in Edahi v. Lewis and Vicen v. Lewis from the same district, establishing that non-citizens in removal proceedings who entered without inspection retain the right to seek bond hearings under Section 1226.

Shanneil Wooten v. Louisville Metro Government et al. — Pro Se Complaint Dismissed

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky dismissed a pro se complaint filed by Shanneil Wooten under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for proceeding in forma pauperis. The complaint named Louisville Metro Government, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS), Morgan and Morgan attorneys, Norton Hospital, and unspecified police and government entities as defendants, alleging wrongful death of ward Lillian Clayton, healthcare retaliation, and false claims. The court found the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This is a routine procedural dismissal of an individual civil action and does not establish precedential obligations for similarly situated parties.

Swint v. Seven - Pro Se Complaint Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

The US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky dismissed a pro se inmate complaint filed by Robert James Swint against a defendant identified only as 'Seven.' The plaintiff, incarcerated at Columbia County Jail in Oregon, sought $2.7 million immediately and $45 trillion total, citing incoherent claims. The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and § 1332 (diversity), and dismissed the action pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.