Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ELIASET GOMEZ-CARRERO,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, PIKE COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:26-CV-02367
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 filed by Eliaset Gomez-Carrero. (Doc. 1.) Because Petitioner has been
removed from the United States, the court finds that his petition is moot and will
be dismissed.
On August 18, 2026, Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus
against the Warden of Pike County Correctional Facility (“Respondent”). (Doc.
1.) He argues that his continued detention violates his due process rights. (Id.)
Petitioner also filed an emergency motion for immediate return to Pike County
Correctional Facility on August 20, 2026, following his transfer from that facility.
(Doc. 4.) The court has not ruled on that motion.
Respondent filed a response on September 2, 2026, and Petitioner filed a
traverse on September 15, 2026. (Docs. 9, 10.) Petitioner then filed two additional
motions arguing that Respondent violated the court’s order by not returning him to
Case 1:26-cv-02367-JPW Document 15 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Pike County Correctional Facility.1 (Docs. 11, 12.) On October 14, 2026, the
court requested an update from Respondent on Petitioner’s status as Respondent
previously advised that Petitioner was scheduled to be removed from the United
States on September 23, 2026. (Doc. 13.) The next day, Respondent advised the
court that Petitioner was removed from the United States on October 13, 2026.
(Doc. 14, p. 1; Doc. 14-1.)2 Respondent submits that the petition is now moot and
should be dismissed. (Doc. 14, p. 2.)
Generally, a petition for habeas corpus becomes moot when the petitioner is
released from custody before the petition has been addressed on the merits. DeFoy
v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 441 (2005) (citing Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624,
631 (1982)). This is so because for a case or controversy to exist, the petitioner
“must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the
defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. (quoting
Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). Here, even if Petitioner
was successful on the merits of his petition, there is no action to be redressed by
this court since Petitioner was removed, and he is no longer detained in the United
States.
1 The court notes that it has not issued any such order in this case.
2 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
Case 1:26-cv-02367-JPW Document 15 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
For this reason, the petition is moot and will be dismissed. The court will
also deny Petitioner’s motions as moot. (Docs. 4, 11, 12.)
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: October 16, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-02367-JPW Document 15 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 3