Juarez Reyes v. Tate et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARLYN KARINA JUAREZ
REYES,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-2682
RANDY TATE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is Petitioner Marlyn Karina Juarez Reyes’s
(“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (ECF No. 1).
Respondents have filed an Advisory informing the Court that Petitioner was
removed from the United States. (ECF No. 8). Having reviewed the Petition,
Respondents’ Advisory, and the applicable law, the Court RECOMMENDS
that this action be DISMISSED AS MOOT.
I. 	Background
Petitioner, represented by counsel, filed this habeas action on April 3,
2026, 	challenging 	her 	immigration 	detention 	while 	in 	custody 	at 	the
Montgomery Processing Center in Conroe, Texas. 	(ECF No. 1). 	On April 8,
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 4).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02682 Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
2026, the Court entered an Order to Answer requiring a response and directing
Respondents to provide advance notice of any transfer outside this District.
(ECF No. 6). Petitioner subsequently filed an Amended Petition. (ECF No. 7).
In neither petition did Petitioner state there was an outstanding in absentia
removal order pending against her.
On April 28, 2026, Respondents filed an Advisory informing the Court
that Petitioner was removed from the United States to Guatemala on April 17,
2026, 	pursuant 	to 	a 	final 	removal 	order 	(ECF 	No. 	8). 	Respondents
acknowledge that this removal occurred without the five-day advance notice
required by the Court’s Order. (Id.).
II. 	Discussion
Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of
live cases or controversies. 	When a petitioner is no longer in custody and the
Court can no longer grant effective relief, a habeas petition becomes moot. See
Ortez v. Chandler, 845 F.2d 573, 575 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a habeas
petition becomes moot when the habeas relief requested “can no longer be
effected”). 	Petitioner challenged only the legality of her detention. 	Because
she has now been removed from the United States, she is no longer in the
custody of Respondents, and the Court cannot grant the requested relief.
Accordingly, this action is moot and should be dismissed on that basis.
Case 4:26-cv-02682 Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
Even if this case were not moot, the Court lacked jurisdiction over
Petitioner’s claims to the extent they implicate the execution of a final order of
removal. 	The record reflects that an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner
removed to Guatemala in absentia on July 23, 2019, and that the order became
administratively final when Petitioner did not appeal or seek reopening. (See
ECF No. 8-1 ¶¶ 5–7; ECF No. 8-2).
Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to
review or interfere with the execution of a final order of removal; such
challenges fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of appeals. 	See
Benitez-Garay v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 18-cv-422, 2019 WL 542035, at
*3 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2019) (“Thus, the [REAL-ID] Act strips the district courts
of jurisdiction to review general removal orders, via a petition for habeas
corpus, leaving review of such orders to the courts of appeals.”). 	Accordingly,
the 	Court 	lacked 	jurisdiction 	to 	grant 	relief 	that 	would 	interfere 	with
Petitioner’s removal.2
To the extent Petitioner challenges the duration of her detention, she is
not entitled to relief under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The record
reflects that Petitioner was detained for approximately one month before her
2 Even if Petitioner did not have a final order of removal, she would not be entitled to
habeas relief or a bond hearing under controlling Fifth Circuit authority. 	See Buenrostro-
Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026).
Case 4:26-cv-02682 Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
removal. 	This period falls well within the presumptively reasonable time to
effect removal, and there is no indication that her detention was indefinite or
otherwise unconstitutional.
The Court is compelled to address Respondents’ failure to comply with
the 	Order 	to 	Answer 	(ECF 	No. 	6). 	The 	Court 	expressly 	required 	that
Respondents provide at least five days’ advance notice of any planned transfer
of Petitioner outside this District. 	(Id. at 2). 	Despite this clear directive,
Petitioner was removed from the United States without any prior notice to the
Court. 	Although Respondents represent that this failure resulted from a
breakdown in communication and was not intentional (ECF No. 8 at 1), such
an explanation does not excuse noncompliance. 	The Government is expected
to take all necessary steps to ensure that court-ordered obligations are timely
communicated and followed by all pertinent agencies and personnel. 	Failure
to comply with court orders, particularly in the context of habeas proceedings
where timing and custody status are critical, undermines the Court’s ability to
manage its docket and provide meaningful judicial review. 	Respondents are
therefore ADMONISHED to ensure strict compliance with all future court
orders.
III. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Case 4:26-cv-02682 Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on May 5, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02682 Document 9 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5