Oluwafemi v. Rivas

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Opaaje Adedeji Oluwafemi,
Petitioner,
v.
David Rivas,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-04767-PHX-SMB (DMF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE:
This matter is on referral to the undersigned for further proceedings and a report and
recommendation pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure
(Doc. 3 at 5).1
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Self-represented Petitioner Opaaje Adedeji Oluwafemi (“Petitioner” and/or
“Oluwafemi”) filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in Federal Custody (“Petition”) (Doc. 1). At the time the Petition was filed,
Petitioner was confined in the San Luis Regional Detention Center (Id. at 1). The Petition
names San Luis Regional Detention Center Warden David Rivas as Respondent (Id.).
The Petition challenges Petitioner’s immigration detention without bond (Id.). As
1 Citation to the record as “Doc.” indicates documents as displayed in the official Court
electronic document filing system maintained by the District of Arizona under Case No.
CV-25-04767-PHX-SMB (DMF).
Case 2:25-cv-04767-SMB Document 12 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recounted in the Court’s January 13, 2026, Order, Petitioner raises five bases for relief:
(1) Petitioner asserts his Due Process rights were violated when ICE detained
him in May 2025 and attempted to deport him in September 2025 despite
Petitioner’s Board of Immigration appeal and stay of removal.
(2) Petitioner claims that his order of removal is not final pursuant to Johnson
v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021).
(3) Petitioner contends that the balance of hardship and public interest weighs
in his favor to be released from custody because his family is suffering an
extreme hardship. Petitioner asserts he helps support his wife, four-year-old
son, and thirteen-year old stepdaughter, who are all United States citizens.
(4) Plaintiff claims he is eligible to be released under interim guidance from
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued July 8, 2025, which
states that “non-citizens who have already been admitted into the United
States are eligible to be released during removal proceedings and other non-
citizens [are] subject to mandatory detention.”
(5) Petitioner alleges his due process rights were violated on December 4,
2025, when an ICE officer handed him several documents relating to a
custody review decision: a “Notice to Alien of Interview for Review of
Custody Status,” a “Decision to Continue Detention,” and a “Post Order
Custody Review” form. Petitioner claims the “Post Order Custody Review”
form is a worksheet that helps “the agency make a fear [determination],”
however a decision rendering him detained was handed to him the moment
he finished filling out the worksheet.
(Doc. 3 at 2). The Petition requests the Court order Petitioner’s immediate release from
immigration detention, to order Respondent to hold a bond hearing, and to appoint counsel
for Petitioner (Doc. 1 at 12). Petitioner also states that “USCIS should finalize [his]
pending change of status application” (Id.). The Court denied without prejudice
appointment of counsel and required Respondent to answer the Petition (Doc. 3 at 3).
On January 30, 2026, Petitioner filed a Notice of Change of Address reflecting that
Petitioner’s new mailing address is an apartment in Palmdale, California (Doc. 9). Shortly
thereafter, the Court received mail returned as undeliverable which was addressed to
Petitioner’s initial address at the San Luis Regional Detention Center and contained a copy
of the Court’s January 13, 2026, Order (Doc. 10). Internal court docket notes reflect that
Case 2:25-cv-04767-SMB Document 12 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on February 4, 2026, the Clerk of Court remailed the Court’s Order (Doc. 3) to Petitioner
at his updated address (Doc. 9).
On February 5, 2026, Respondent filed an answer to the Petition (“Answer”)
reporting that Petitioner was released from immigration detention on January 14, 2026,
after paying a bond (Doc. 11 at 1). Respondent summarizes in the Answer:
On December 18, 2025, Petitioner Opaaje Adedeji Oluwafemi, filed the
habeas petition in this case. Petitioner argued his detention was improper
and he was without the ability to post a bond. Doc. 1. Because Petitioner
has now been released from custody after paying bond, the claims raised in
Petitioner’s habeas petition and related motions are now moot.
(Doc. 11 at 1). The Answer urges the Court to deny and dismiss the Petition as moot (Id.
at 3). On the date of filing, Respondent mailed a copy of the Answer to Petitioner at
Petitioner’s updated address of record in Palmdale, California (Id.).
Petitioner has not filed a reply, and the time to do so has expired.
II. DISCUSSION
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate
only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199
(1988). “For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the petitioner’s
release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining ‘collateral consequence’ that may
be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.
2007) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). For example, a petition that
disputes the merits of an order of removal may raise sufficient collateral consequences to
maintain a live case or controversy. Id.; see also Handa v. Clark, 401 F.3d 1129, 1132-33
(9th Cir. 2005).
Respondent is correct that this action is now moot. Petitioner alleges that his
constitutional due process rights were violated by his immigration detention without a bond
hearing. Respondent represents that Petitioner has been released on bond (Doc. 11 at 1).
This representation is supported by Petitioner’s Notice of Change of Address reflecting an
address at an apartment in Palmdale, California (Doc. 9) and the Court’s receipt of mail
Case 2:25-cv-04767-SMB Document 12 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
returned as undeliverable which was addressed to Petitioner’s initial address at the San
Luis Regional Detention Center (Doc. 10). Furthermore, Petitioner does not challenge the
merits of an order of removal in these proceedings but instead asserts there is no final order
of removal for purposes of detention (Doc. 1 at 5). Thus, the Petition does not raise any
collateral consequence sufficient to maintain a live case or controversy. Because Petitioner
has been released on bond, Petitioner’s claims challenging his immigration detention
without a bond hearing are now moot.
Insofar as Petitioner’s request that “USCIS should finalize [Petitioner’s] pending
change of status application” (Doc. 1 at 12) can be construed as a request for mandamus
relief, Petitioner does not assert that Respondent has a “clear nondiscretionary duty” to
process his adjustment of status application on an accelerated basis. See Heckler v. Ringer,
466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Moreover, Petitioner has not named as Respondent any USCIS
official with authority to execute the requested relief. Thus, Petitioner’s request for relief
regarding his adjustment of status application cannot be redressed by success on the
Petition.
In sum, Petitioner has been released on bond from immigration detention and the
Petition raises no collateral consequence or request for relief to maintain a live case or
controversy. See Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1064.
III. CONCLUSION
Because Petitioner’s release on bond renders the Petition moot, it is recommended
that the Petition be dismissed and this matter terminated.
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (Doc. 1) be dismissed as moot and this
matter terminated.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s
judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this
Case 2:25-cv-04767-SMB Document 12 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties shall have fourteen days within which
to file responses to any objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and
Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-
Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual
determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. In addition, LRCiv 7.2(e)(3)
provides that “[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court, an objection to a Report and
Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages.”
Dated this 19th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04767-SMB Document 12 Filed 03/19/26 Page 5 of 5