Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Deicy S. L.,
Petitioner,
v. 	ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Civil File No. 26-00797 (MJD/LIB)
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Defendants.
Graham Blair Ojala-Barbour, Ojala-Barbour Law Firm, Counsel for Petitioner.
Daniel N. Rosen, United States Attorney, Counsel for Respondents.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois filed February
3, 2026. [Doc. 7.] No objections have been filed. Pursuant to statute, the Court
has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn.
LR 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Brisbois.
The Court merely adds the following: When the Court orders the
immediate release and return to Minnesota of a petitioner, the Court means
CASE 0:26-cv-00797-MJD-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
exactly what it says: immediate release. The overcrowding issues with
detention centers and ICE flights Respondents often cite as reasons to continue
detaining noncitizens who have been ordered released and returned to
Minnesota are problems of Respondents’ own making.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS with modification the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois filed February
3, 2026. [Doc. 7.] Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. 1] is
GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody
and arrange for her safe return to Minnesota;
2. 	On or before 3:00 p.m. central time February 8, 2025, Respondents are
ordered to confirm Petitioner’s release from custody and safe return to
Minnesota with all of the personal property she had with her at the time of
her arrest;
3. 	Respondents are precluded from re-detaining Petitioner under a statutory
theory this Court has rejected in this proceeding absent materially changed
circumstances; and
CASE 0:26-cv-00797-MJD-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
4. 	If Respondents do not return Petitioner to Minnesota as ordered in items
numbered 1.-3., above, they are instead ordered to file a statement that
shows cause why they should not be held in civil contempt for twice
failing to return Petitioner to the District of Minnesota. This statement
must be filed no later than 3:00 p.m. central time February 8, 2025.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: 	February 6, 2026 	s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00797-MJD-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3