Espinosa v. GEO Coastal Bend Detention Center SEE ORDER DE 36 AS TO MAILINGS TO PETITIONER .

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
OMAR ROBLES ESPINOSA,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00113
GEO COASTAL BEND DETENTION
CENTER,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Omar Robles Espinosa 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 his continued detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (D.E. 1).
Pending is Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on May 20, 2026, requesting this
case be dismissed as moot because Petitioner was removed to Mexico on May 7, 2026.
(D.E. 42). On May 11, 2026, as Court mail sent to Petitioner at the Coastal Bend Detention
Center was returned as undeliverable and the Court no longer had a current mailing address
for Petitioner, the undersigned entered an order directing Petitioner to immediately update
his mailing address and advising Petitioner that any response to a motion filed by
Respondent was due within 14 days from the date the motion was filed. (D.E. 36). The
undersigned directed the Clerk of Court to mail the Order to Petitioner at the address listed
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00113 Document 45 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
by Petitioner’s son, who initiated this action on behalf of his father, as the return address
listed on the envelope containing the original petition in this case. (D.E. 36 and D.E. 1-1,
Page 1). The mailing was not returned as undeliverable and to date, Petitioner has failed
to update his current mailing address and has not filed a response to the pending Motion to
Dismiss. Therefore, Petitioner’s failure to file a response is taken as a representation of
no opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the local rules.
The only relief sought in this matter was Petitioner’s challenge to his continued
detention. 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, his grounds for relief
in this action are moot, his petition no longer presents a live controversy and this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider his 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.”) Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED as moot. (D.E. 42).
Case 2:26-cv-00113 Document 45 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
The undersigned alternatively recommends that Petitioner’s case be DISMISSED
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Petitioner has failed to update
the Court with his current mailing address as ordered. 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).
ORDERED on June 15, 2026.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00113 Document 45 Filed 06/15/26 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 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(c); Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Article IV, 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
recommendations 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-00113 Document 45 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4