Guzman v. Warden

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MISHELL YVETTE GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00206
WARDEN, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Mishell Yvette Guzman was alleged to have been in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
officials at the Coastal Bend Detention Center in Robstown, Texas, at the time of filing this
habeas petition challenging her continued detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (D.E. 1).
This case has been referred to the undersigned for case management pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. For the reasons discussed below, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service pursuant to the screening provisions of
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Actions because Petitioner was removed from the
United States on July 10, 2026. (D.E. 8).
The Petition is dated July 5, 2026 and was received by the Court on July 10, 2026.
(D.E. 1, Page 11 and D.E. 1-1, Page 1). Petitioner alleges she was detained by ICE on June
1, 2026, in Los Angeles, California. (D.E. 1, Page 2). As the ICE detainee locator website
did not show Petitioner as being in custody at the time this case was initially docketed and
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00206 Document 9 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
the Petition was mailed from Las Vegas, Nevada, the undersigned entered an Order on July
17, 2026 directing the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas to file an advisory
with the Court advising whether Petitioner is currently in custody and where she has been
held since July 1, 2026. (D.E. 7). The advisory was filed on July 21, 2026, stating
Petitioner was removed from the United States on July 10, 2026, the same day her Petition
was received by this Court, after being in custody at the Coastal Bend Detention Center.
(D.E. 8).
The only relief sought in this matter was Petitioner’s challenges to her continued
detention and removal order and a request to stay her removal. Generally, a petition for
habeas corpus relief becomes moot when a prisoner is released from custody before the
court has addressed the merits of the petition. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982). As
Petitioner is no longer in custody, her grounds for relief in this action are moot, her petition
no longer presents a live controversy, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider her
claim. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) (A case becomes moot “when the
issues presented are no longer ‘live’”); American Med. Ass’n v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 267, 270
(5th Cir. 1988) (“If a dispute has been resolved or if it has evanesced because of changed
circumstances, including the passage of time, it is considered moot.”); Escobar v. Barr,
824 F. App’x 300, 300-301 (5th Cir. 2020) (“If, during the pendency of litigation, the
complaining party receives the relief he originally sought to obtain in court, the action must
be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”)
Case 2:26-cv-00206 Document 9 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without
prejudice. The undersigned alternatively recommends Petitioner’s case be DISMISSED
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Petitioner has failed to update
the Court with her current mailing address and has not otherwise indicated she wishes to
proceed with this action after her removal from the United States. Martinez v. Johnson,
104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte
dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute).
Respectfully submitted on July 22, 2026.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00206 Document 9 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of
plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Case 2:26-cv-00206 Document 9 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4