Rrukaj v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
KLISMAN RRUKAJ,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1282
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
OPINION
Petitioner, a former United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee,
initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.1 (Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Corrected Pet., ECF No. 4, PageID.27.)
In an order entered on April 27, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause, within
three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner should
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on April 30, 2026. (ECF
1 Petitioner was one of thirteen petitioners named in the § 2241 petition. In an order entered on
April 22, 2026, the Court severed the claims of the petitioners into thirteen separate actions.
(Order, ECF No. 4.) Petitioner’s claims proceed in the present action.
Case 1:26-cv-01282-PLM-SJB ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/12/26 Page 1
of 3

2
No. 6.) Petitioner filed a reply on May 5, 2026. (ECF No. 7.) On June 2, 2026, Respondents
submitted a status report, which states that Petitioner was removed from the United States on May
6, 2026, and that Petitioner was no longer in the custody of Respondents. (Status Report., ECF No.
10, PageID.108; Warrant of Removal/Deportation, ECF No. 10-1, PageID.111.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Albania. (Corrected Pet., ECF No. 4, PageID.17; Notice
to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-2, PageID.29.) On July 7, 2011, Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) agents served Petitioner with a NTA and charging him with inadmissibility under
§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an
immigrant “who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired
[immigration or travel document].” (NTA, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.29.)
On November 24, 2014, the immigration court ordered Petitioner removed. (Corrected Pet.,
ECF No. 4, PageID.18; Removal Order, ECF No. 6-4, PageID.60–67.) The Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on August 21, 2015.2 (Corrected Pet., ECF No. 4,
PageID.18; BIA Appeal, ECF No. 6-5, PageID.71–73.)
On April 14, 2026, DHS agents encountered and arrested Petitioner at a friend’s home
(Corrected Pet., ECF No. 4, PageID.19.) Petitioner was removed from the United States on May
6, 2026. (Warrant of Removal/Deportation, ECF No. 10-1, PageID.111.)
2 For the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), a removal order “shall become final upon the earlier of
(i) a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming such an order; or (ii) the
expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board
of Immigration Appeals.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B).
Case 1:26-cv-01282-PLM-SJB ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/12/26 Page 2
of 3

3
III. 	Habeas Corpus Legal Standard
The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual
detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S.
Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the power to issue
writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens in immigration-
related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A. A. R. P. v. Trump,
145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).
IV. 	Analysis
In Petitioner’s § 2241 corrected petition, as relief, Petitioner asks the Court to order
Respondents to release Petitioner from custody. (Corrected Pet., ECF No. 4, PageID.27.) After
initiating this action, Petitioner was removed from the United States and is no longer in
Respondents’ 	custody. 	(Status 	Report, 	ECF 	No. 	10, 	PageID.108; 	Warrant 	of
Removal/Deportation, ECF No. 10-1, PageID.111.)
Because the relief sought in Petitioner’s § 2241 petition relates to his detention, and he is
no longer detained by Respondents, it appears that the present § 2241 petition is moot. Therefore,
the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	June 12, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
For the Honorable Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01282-PLM-SJB ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/12/26 Page 3
of 3