Matias Miranda v. Gradiska et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
CELSO CRISTOBAL MATIAS
MIRANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN GRADISKA et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-6
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action while he was detained at the North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake
County, Michigan, by filing a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1; Am. Pet., ECF No. 2.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss
Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without
prejudice as moot.
I. Procedural History
In Petitioner’s amended § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his
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 from custody or provide Petitioner with a bond
hearing. (Am. Pet., ECF No. 2, PageID.48.)
In an order entered on January 5, 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. 4.) Following an extension of time, on January 15, 2026,
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HYJ-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the action because Petitioner had been released from
custody. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner did not file a response to the motion, and Petitioner’s time to do
so has expired.
II. 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).
“Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to
adjudicate only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v.
United States, 158 F.4th 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Mokdad v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 167, 169
(6th Cir. 2017)). “Part of what Article III requires is that there be a live case or controversy—
‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. (some internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). “When
the case-and-controversy requirement is not satisfied, federal courts lack subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Mokdad, 876 F.3d at 170.)
III. Discussion
In this case, after Petitioner filed the instant § 2241 petition on January 2, 2026, Petitioner
was released from custody on January 7, 2026. (Notification Granting Parole, ECF No. 10.)
Respondents then filed a motion to dismiss, seeking the dismissal of this action for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction because the action is moot. (Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 8, PageID.89.)
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HYJ-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 2
of 3

3
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, he requested that the Court “order Petitioner’s release” or
order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing. (Am. Pet., ECF No. 2, PageID.48.)
After Petitioner filed his § 2241 petition, Petitioner was released from custody. Under these
circumstances, because Petitioner was released from custody, which was the relief that he sought
in his § 2241 petition, the § 2241 petition is now moot, and the Court will grant Respondents’
motion to dismiss.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter an order and judgment granting
Respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismissing Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice as moot.
Dated: February 17, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HYJ-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 3
of 3