Guerrero-Landaeta v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
S.E.G.L., §
PETITIONER, §
§
V. § CIVIL NO. 3:26-CV-209-B-BK
§
KRISTI NOEM, ET AL., §
RESPONDENTS. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, Petitioner’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for
case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. Doc. 1.
Petitioner, an alien detainee, challenges her detention by Immigration Customs Enforcement
(ICE). However, Respondents advise that ICE facilitated Petitioner’s voluntary departure from
the United States to Venezuela on February 17, 2026, pursuant to the immigration judge’s order.
Doc. 7. As such, the issue presented in the habeas petition is now moot.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court
jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445
U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or
the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)).
Here, the habeas petition only sought Petitioner’s release from custody. Doc. 1. Since
Petitioner is no longer detained and has voluntarily departed from the United States, the sole
ground for relief is now moot and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition.
Case 3:26-cv-00209-B-BK Document 8 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
Therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction as moot. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).
SO RECOMMENDED on March 27, 2026.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by
law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific
written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific
written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir.
1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file
objections to 14 days).
Case 3:26-cv-00209-B-BK Document 8 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>