Xu et al v. Federal Officials Responsible for Custody

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 7:26-cv-00199 Document9_ Filed 05/19/26 in TXSD Pagelof3
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 19, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
MCALLEN DIVISION
B.X., §
§
Petitioner, §
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:26-CV-199
VS. §
§
FEDERAL OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE §
FOR CUSTODY, §
§
Respondent. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner B. X., appearing through the assistance of her putative next friend, Jing Xu, has
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging her detention by
immigration officials. (Docket No. 1.) Petitioner is a citizen of China but claims to have a lawful
status in the United States under an F-1 visa.' (/d. at 1,3.) Through the Petition, Ms. Xu claimed
that, despite her lawful status, Petitioner was being detained in the “McAllen Station” under
ostensible conditions “that exceed the lawful scope of short-term detention” and without being
“[p]rovide[d] a clear legal basis for her detention” or access to counsel. (/d.) In terms of relief,
Ms. Xu represented that Petitioner was not “seek[ing] review of any removal order or immigration
detention” but, rather, “[1]mmediate release” based on a “challeng[e] [of] the facts and legality of
[the] present detention[.]” (/d. at 2.)

As discussed below, because Petitioner has already received the relief sought in this § 2241
petition, this action is now moot. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed.

' This is a nonimmigrant academic student visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i).

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 7:26-cv-00199 Document9 Filed 05/19/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

I. DISCUSSION

As noted, on April 23, 2026, Petitioner filed this § 2241 habeas petition, through her “next
friend,” challenging her continued detention by immigration officials.” After an initial review of
the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts,* the Magistrate Judge ordered Ms. Xu, as a threshold matter, to submit further briefing
concerning her “next friend” status to request habeas relief on Petitioner’s behalf.4 (Docket No.
5.) Ms. Xu failed to comply by the ordered deadline of May 1, 2026. As such, on May 14, 2026,
the Magistrate Judge ordered the Government to submit an advisory concerning whether Petitioner
is currently being detained by immigration officials and, if so, where she is being detained, and
the basis for such detention. (Docket No. 7.) The Government has now advised that Petitioner is
not currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and contends that the
Petition should be dismissed. (Docket No. 8, at 1.)

Indeed, where a petitioner receives the relief they sought through their habeas petition in
the form of release from immigration custody, the petition no longer presents a live case or

controversy for purposes of Article III of the Constitution, and is thus subject to being dismissed

? This case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

> Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District

Courts provides that those rules may apply to any petition for writ of habeas corpus, including
those under § 2241.

4 Generally, an “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and
verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2242. This provision codifies the “next friend” doctrine, which allows under certain
circumstances the filing of a petition for habeas relief on behalf of another. See Whitmore v.
Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162-63 (1990). There are two elements to “next friend” standing. First,
a “next friend” must provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental
incompetence, or other disability—as to why the petitioner cannot appear on their own behalf. Jd.
at 163 (quotations omitted). Second, a “next friend” must be truly dedicated to the petitioner’s
best interests, such that they share some significant relationship. Jd. at 162-64.

2

Case 7:26-cv-00199 Document9 _ Filed 05/19/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

as moot. See Wilfredo R. v. Noem, 2025 WL 3520307, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2025), report
and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 3517779 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2025); see also Salazar v.
Gillis, 2020, WL 3087012, at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 10, 2020) (collecting cases). As such, the
undersigned now recommends that Petitioner’s § 2241 habeas petition, as well as this civil action,

be dismissed as moot.

Il. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket No. 1) be DENIED, and that this action be
DISMISSED as moot. It is further recommended that Petitioner be denied a certificate of
appealability as unnecessary.°

NOTICE

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the parties, who have
fourteen (14) days after receipt thereof to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to file timely written
objections shall bar an aggrieved party from receiving a de novo review by the District Court on
an issue covered in this Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal
the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.

SO ORDERED, the 19th of May, 2026 at McAllen, Texas.

NA
AV Ac

If
NADIA'S. MEDRANO
United States strate Judge

> A petitioner “proceeding under § 2241 . . . is not required to obtain a certificate of
appealability to pursue [a direct] appeal.” Washington v. Chandler, 533 F. App’x 460, 461 (Sth
Cir. 2013) (citing Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (Sth Cir. 2001)).

3