Elshad v. Frink

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Fatullayeu Elshad
(A# 244-101-934),
Petitioner,
v.
Pam Bondi et al.,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-26-2045
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Fatullayeu Elshad, proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 13, 2026. ECF No. 1.
Petitioner 	challenges 	the 	constitutionality 	of 	his 	continued
detention by United States Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In an “Advisory” filed on April 7, 2026, counsel for the
Government states that the Petitioner had been removed from the
United States on March 17, 2026, and that this action is therefore
moot. ECF No. 10. The Government also filed a declaration by
Deportation Officer Christopher Holmes stating that Petitioner
was removed to Azerbaijan on March 17, 2026. ECF No. 10-1.
Petitioner has not filed any responsive filing. A search in the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Online Detainee Locator
System, 	https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search, 	on 	April 	16, 	2026,
returned no results for Petitioner’s A-Number. The court concludes
that Petitioner has been removed from the United States and is
therefore no longer in the government’s physical custody.
Although 	Petitioner 	was 	in 	“custody” 	for 	purposes 	of
28 U.S.C. § 2241 when he filed his petition, his removal renders
his petition moot. See Alvarez Colina v. Gillis, No. 21-60064, 2022
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02045 Document 11 Filed 04/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
WL 1001437, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 4, 2022) (per curiam). The court
therefore recommends that this case be DISMISSED without
prejudice as MOOT.
The 	parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this
memorandum and recommendation to file written objections. See
Rule 	8(b) 	of 	the 	Rules 	Governing 	Section 	2254 	Cases;
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to timely file
objections will preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal
conclusions, 	except 	for 	plain 	error. 	See 	Thomas 	v. 	Arn, 	474
U.S. 140, 147-49 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77
(5th Cir. 1988).
Signed at Houston, Texas, on April 16, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02045 Document 11 Filed 04/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2