Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Walter A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Peter B. Berg, Director of St. Paul
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security; Warden, Port
Isabel Detention Center;
Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of
the United States,
Respondents.
No. 25-cv-4720 (SRN/LIB)
ORDER
Stacey Rogers, SSR Law Group LLC, 600 25th Ave. S., Ste. 201, St. Cloud, MN 56301;
Hannah Brown, 1907 E. Wayzata Blvd., Ste. 300, Wayzata, MN 55391, for Petitioner
Ana Voss and Trevor Brown, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN
55415, for Respondents
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court are Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue [Doc. No.
9]; Respondents’ Request to Extend the Briefing Deadline [Doc. No. 17]; and Petitioner’s
Motion to Amend [Doc. No. 19]. The Court previously scheduled a hearing to be held via
videoconference on January 29, 2026 on Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
CASE 0:25-cv-04720-SRN-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 01/25/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Venue and any remaining requested relief in Petitioner’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction [Doc. No. 4].
In Petitioner’s Motion to Amend, counsel represents that Respondents moved
Petitioner, Walter A., from Texas back to Minnesota, where he was originally arrested, on
December 26, 2026. Petitioner seeks to amend the Petition to remove the name of one of
the Texas Respondents due, in part, to Petitioner’s return to Minnesota. 	In his Motion,
Petitioner states that the Proposed Amended Petition is “attached” and will be “filed
separately.” 	(Pet’r’s Mot. to Am. at 1; 19.) 	However, Petitioner did not file a Proposed
Amended Petition. Petitioner also docketed the Motion to Amend not as a “motion,” but
as an “Amended Petition.”
Respondents did not file an answer to the original Petition on January 15, 2026, as
required by the Court, (Dec. 22, 2025 Order [Doc. No. 15] at 10), but instead filed their
Reply to the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue on that date. In their Reply to the Motion
to Dismiss or Transfer Venue, Respondents stated that as of January 15, 2026, “[T]he
person who holds [Walter A.] in custody is undisputedly in Texas.” 	(Resp’ts’ Mot. to
Dismiss or Transfer at 3.) 	At that time, however, Petitioner had apparently been in
Minnesota for over two weeks. 	Also on January 15, Respondents filed their Request for
an Extension, asking the Court to first rule on their Motion to Dismiss or Transfer before
requiring them to file an answer to the Petition.
Because of the changed circumstances, and based on the submissions and entire file
and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
CASE 0:25-cv-04720-SRN-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 01/25/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1. 	Petitioner shall file a copy of the Proposed Amended Petition no later than
January 26, 2026, and correct the docket/refile the document to reflect that the
current document filed as the “Amended Petition” [Doc. No. 19] is the Motion
to Amend.
2. 	Respondents are directed to file a consolidated answer to the substantive issues
raised in the Amended Petition/response to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend no
later than January 27, 2026, certifying the true cause and proper duration of
Petitioner’s confinement and showing cause why the writ should not be granted
in this case.
3. 	Respondents’ answer should include:
a. 	Such affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness and
correct duration of Petitioner’s detention in light of the issues raised in the
habeas petition; and
b. 	A reasoned memorandum of law and fact explaining respondents’ legal
position on Petitioner’s claims.
4. If Petitioner wishes to file a reply, he may do so no later than January 28, 2026.
5. 	The Court will take this matter under advisement on the papers.
6. 	Due to these changed circumstances, the hearing previously scheduled for
January 29, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. is unnecessary. 	The Court will file a notice to
cancel the hearing.
7. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from moving petitioner outside of Minnesota until
further order of the Court, so that petitioner may consult with counsel while the
CASE 0:25-cv-04720-SRN-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 01/25/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Court is considering the petition, and so that there is no risk that removal of
petitioner from Minnesota will deprive this Court of jurisdiction over the
petition. 	If petitioner has already been removed from Minnesota, respondents
are ORDERED to immediately return petitioner to Minnesota.
8. 	Because Petitioner is no longer in Texas, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer Venue [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED AS MOOT.
9. 	Respondents’ Request to Extend Briefing Deadline [Doc. No. 17] is DENIED
AS MOOT.
Dated: January 25, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-04720-SRN-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 01/25/26 Page 4 of 4