Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mohammed H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Donald J. Trump, et al.,
Respondents.
Civ. No. 25-1576 (JWB/DTS)
ORDER
ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Mohammed H. moved for an order requiring Respondents to show
cause for why they should not be held in contempt for violating the June 17, 2025 Order
granting his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 43.)
On February 6, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Petitioner’s motion be
denied. (Doc. No. 54.) Petitioner timely objected to the R&R on February 20, 2026.
(Doc. No. 56.) Respondents have not filed a response to Petitioner’s objection. For the
following reasons, the objections are overruled in part, and the R&R is accepted in part.
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2025, this Court granted Petitioner’s habeas petition and ordered that
he “shall remain released from custody,” subject to previously imposed conditions. (Doc.
No. 36 at 17.) That order remained in effect at all relevant times.
On January 15, 2026, despite this Court’s prior release order, agents from U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) went to Petitioner’s residence, arrested
CASE 0:25-cv-01576-JWB-DTS Doc. 60 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 6

2
him, and transported him to Fort Snelling for processing. (Doc. No. 51 ¶¶ 4–5.) Petitioner
was held in custody for approximately seven hours before being released later that day.
(Id. ¶ 5.) Respondents concede that this arrest and detention occurred notwithstanding
this Court’s prior order requiring that Petitioner remain released.
The parties offer materially different accounts of how that violation occurred.
Respondents’ declarant states that the arresting agents were unaware of the Court’s order
because it was recorded in a system that was not consulted prior to the arrest. (Doc. No.
51 ¶ 6.) Petitioner, in contrast, states that he informed the agents of the order at the time
of arrest and that they indicated they were aware of it but proceeded nonetheless. (Doc.
No. 45 ¶¶ 13, 16.) The present record contains no additional evidence describing the
systems consulted, the decision-making process leading to the arrest, or any steps taken
after the incident to prevent a recurrence.
DISCUSSION
A district court reviews de novo the portions of an R&R to which specific
objections are made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR
72.2(b)(3). Portions not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Grinder v. Gammon, 73
F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Petitioner does not object to the R&R’s analysis of compensatory sanctions,
conceding that he seeks no such relief. (Doc. No. 56 at 11.) Nor does the record support
coercive sanctions directed at the January 15 detention. Civil contempt sanctions must
either compensate for a loss or coerce compliance with an ongoing obligation; they may
CASE 0:25-cv-01576-JWB-DTS Doc. 60 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 6

3
not be punitive. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828
(1994). Because Respondents released Petitioner the same day, there is no ongoing
violation for coercive sanctions to remedy, and compensatory sanctions are unavailable
against federal officials in these circumstances. Coleman v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1184, 1191–
92 (8th Cir. 1993). The R&R is accepted to that extent.
Instead, Petitioner objects to the R&R’s determination that no coercive sanctions
or prospective relief were warranted. Specifically, Petitioner faults the R&R for simply
accepting Respondents’ written statements at face value without either holding a hearing
or receiving documentary evidence to resolve credibility and other evidentiary issues.
On that point, the record does not support final resolution. The relevant question is not
whether the past violation can be remedied at this point—it cannot—but whether some
forward-looking relief is necessary to ensure compliance with the June 17, 2025 Order.
That question turns on facts that remain disputed or undeveloped. Petitioner’s
version of the facts is that after he told the arresting agents of his release order, they
stated that they knew of the order and arrested him anyway. Respondents’ version is that
the agents did not know of the order because it did not appear in the systems they
consulted before the arrest. These competing accounts present a material conflict as to
whether the violation resulted from a breakdown in systems or a knowing disregard of a
court order. The answer bears directly on whether Respondents’ asserted corrective
assurances address the actual cause of the violation.
Even accepting Respondents’ account, the record lacks evidence of the protocols
and systems used, why the system containing the release order was not consulted, or what
CASE 0:25-cv-01576-JWB-DTS Doc. 60 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 6

4
steps—if any—have been taken to prevent a recurrence. Respondents’ counsel offers
assurances of future compliance, but no documented changes. Assurances alone do not
resolve the inquiry. A party’s voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not moot a
request for prospective relief unless it is clear the conduct cannot reasonably be expected
to recur. See Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, 697 F.3d 678, 687 (8th Cir. 2012)
(applying that standard); United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632–33 (1963).
On this record, it is not possible to determine whether the risk of a future violation has
been meaningfully addressed.
Because the need for prospective relief depends on unresolved factual and
credibility issues, the R&R is not adopted to the extent it can be read to foreclose further
inquiry. Therefore, a limited evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine: (1) whether
Respondents were aware of the prior release order at the time of arrest; (2) what systems
or processes led to the violation; and (3) what corrective measures, if any, have been
implemented to prevent recurrence.
ORDER
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Mohammed H.’s Objection to the February 6, 2026 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 56) is OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN
PART.
2. 	The February 6, 2026 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 54) is
ACCEPTED IN PART.
CASE 0:25-cv-01576-JWB-DTS Doc. 60 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 6

5
3. 	Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 43) is DENIED IN
PART to the extent that it seeks compensatory or coercive sanctions for past violations.
The remainder of Petitioner’s Motion, which seeks prospective sanctions to prevent
future violations, will be resolved following an evidentiary hearing.
4. 	An evidentiary hearing is set for 10:00 a.m. on May 12, 2026, in Courtroom
7A (STP). The purpose of the hearing is not to revisit the completed detention, but to
determine whether additional measures are necessary to ensure compliance with this
Court’s prior order. The hearing will be limited to the following issues:
a. 	Whether any arresting agents were aware of this Court’s prior order
granting habeas relief at the time of the January 15, 2026 arrest,
including any statements made to Petitioner regarding that order, and if
they were not aware of the prior order, why not.
b. 	What systems, records, policies, or practices were consulted or relied
upon in effecting Petitioner’s arrest, why the prior order was not
identified, and whether that failure reflects a systems or process
breakdown.
c. 	What steps, if any, Respondents have taken since the arrest to ensure
that the prior order is identified and followed in future enforcement
actions.
Two weeks before the hearing, the parties must exchange proposed witness and
exhibit lists relevant to these limited issues. Any exhibits—including documentary
evidence and any available body-worn camera recordings—must be produced at that
time. Because the information necessary to address these issues lies largely within
Respondents’ possession, Respondents must also produce, at that time, the materials and
information on which they intend to rely, including records sufficient to identify the
officers involved in the January 15, 2026 arrest, the systems or databases consulted prior
CASE 0:25-cv-01576-JWB-DTS Doc. 60 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 6

6
to the arrest, any records reflecting Petitioner’s custody status at that time, and any
documentation authorizing the arrest or reflecting steps taken after the incident to prevent
recurrence.
No depositions will be permitted at this stage. If, after the exchange of materials, a
party believes additional testimony is necessary to resolve the issues identified above,
that party may seek leave of court.
One week before the hearing, each side must file final witness and exhibit lists,
identifying the specific purpose of each witness. Court orders will issue as needed to limit
cumulative or unnecessary testimony, or to require the appearance of additional witnesses
or production of additional evidence as necessary to complete the record.
For efficiency, the parties are encouraged to stipulate to admissibility and
foundation where possible.
Date: April 20, 2026 	s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-01576-JWB-DTS Doc. 60 Filed 04/20/26 Page 6 of 6