Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Carlos F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security;
Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Marcos Charles, Acting Executive
Associate Director for Enforcement and
Removal Operations; Peter Berg, Field
Office Director for Enforcement and
Removal Operations; U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; and
John Doe, Local Detention Authority,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-0469 (SRN/EMB)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Nicholas Ratkowski, Ratkowski Law PLLC, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. W1610, Saint Paul,
MN 55101, for Petitioner
Matthew Isihara, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415, for
Respondents
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is Petitioner Carlos F.’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 10].
Carlos F. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) [Doc. No. 1] on
January 20, 2026, seeking relief related to his immigration detention. At the time he filed
his Petition, he was detained in Minnesota. 	(Pet. ¶ 10.) 	Subsequently, Respondents
CASE 0:26-cv-00469-SRN-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
transferred Carlos F. from Minnesota to Texas. 	(Resp’ts’ Mot. to Dismiss or Transfer
[Doc. No. 6] at 1.) Respondents moved to dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction or
to transfer venue to the “United States District Court for the District of Texas” under 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a). 	(Id.) 	In support of their Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, Respondents
submitted the Declaration of William J. Robinson, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Deportation Officer [Doc. No. 8]. 	Mr. Robinson attested that on
January 26, 2026, at approximately 1:15 p.m., ICE released Carlos F. from custody in El
Paso, Texas, and transferred him to the custody of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office on
a criminal warrant from Minnesota. (Robinson Decl. ¶ 5.)
In light of the pending criminal proceedings against Carlos F., and the fact that
Respondents represented that he was no longer in their custody, the Court found that habeas
relief from his immigration detention was no longer applicable. (Feb. 12, 2026 Order [Doc.
No. 9] at 2.) 	Accordingly, the Court denied the Petition without prejudice and denied
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer as moot. (Id.)
On February 16, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration along
with his February 13, 2026 Declaration [Doc. No. 11]. In his Declaration, Carlos F. states
that while he was temporarily in the custody of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office from
January 26 through February 10, 2026, on February 10, he was returned to ICE custody,
where he is currently held at the West Texas Detention Facility in Sierra Blanca, Texas.
(Carlos F. Decl. ¶ 12.) He further states that without any explanation, he is being held in
isolation, with access to only one phone call per day. 	(Id. ¶ 14.) 	He therefore seeks
CASE 0:26-cv-00469-SRN-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
reconsideration 	of 	the 	Court’s 	February 	12 	Order, 	arguing 	that 	it 	was 	based 	on
Respondents’ erroneous representations. (Pet’r’s Mot. for Reconsid. at 3.)
A party may receive permission for reconsideration only by showing “compelling
circumstances.” 	D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j). 	Motions for reconsideration serve the limited
purpose of “correct[ing] manifest errors of law or fact or . . . present[ing] newly discovered
evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting
Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987)). The Court
finds that Petitioner has established compelling circumstances that warrant granting his
Motion for Reconsideration. The Court based its February 12 Order on the fact that Carlos
F. was no longer in ICE custody, which appears to be incorrect or uncertain.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED.
2. 	Respondents shall respond to Petitioner’s Declaration [Doc. No. 11] no later
than February 22, 2025, with reliable evidence regarding whether Carlos F. is
currently in ICE or criminal custody, where he is currently detained, and if not
in Minnesota, when he will be transported back to Minnesota. Respondents’
memorandum must be supported by exhibits, as a sworn declaration alone will
be insufficient.
1 The Court has been unable to verify that Carlos F. is in ICE custody on the Department
of Human Services (DHS) Detainee Locator website. See U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Online Detainee Locator System (last visited Feb. 17, 2026).
CASE 0:26-cv-00469-SRN-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
3. 	Petitioner may reply to Respondents’ response within five days of the filing of
Respondents’ response.
4. 	To the extent Petitioner remains in ICE custody, he shall not be limited in the
number of telephone calls to or from his legal representatives, and if time limits
are necessary for such calls, they shall be no shorter than 20 minutes.
Dated: February 17, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00469-SRN-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4