Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Fausto O.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
Civil File No. 26-854 (MJD/LIB)
Karen Venice Bryan, KB Law PLLC, Counsel for Petitioner.
David R. Hackworthy, Special Assistant 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 dated
February 4, 2026 [Doc. 8]. There were no objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court 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
dated February 4, 2026.
CASE 0:26-cv-00854-MJD-LIB Doc. 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge Brisbois’ Report and
Recommendation thoroughly analyzes the legal questions at issue, and this
Court will not belabor his points, particularly because there were no objections
filed. However, the Court feels it is important to draw attention to Magistrate
Judge Brisbois’ analysis concerning the District of Minnesota’s habeas
jurisdiction, as well as raise concerns with how the Respondents in this case have
responded to this Court’s Orders.
The Court is deeply concerned by the actions of the Respondents in this
case. Petitioner Fausto O.’s Petition outlines a series of rapid, government-
sponsored transfers of the Petitioner across the country, undertaken without
adequate notice to his counsel. [Doc. 2.] Even after Petitioner was successfully
located, the Respondents in this case then failed to comply with this Court’s
order to return Petition to the District of Minnesota for a period of over a week.
[Doc. 4; Doc. 10.] Petitioner was returned to Minnesota and is currently detained
in a county jail in Willmar, Minnesota. [Doc. 13.]
Judge Brisbois’ analysis, particularly with regard to the habeas jurisdiction
of this Court, should leave no room for doubt that attempts to frustrate this
CASE 0:26-cv-00854-MJD-LIB Doc. 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Court’s jurisdiction through deliberate delay or strategic movement of the
Petitioner will not succeed.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. 	The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated February 4, 2026 [Doc.
8].
2. 	Petitioner Fausto O.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1]
is GRANTED as follows:
A. 	Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner
Fausto O. from detention into Minnesota;
B. 	Respondents are ordered to release Petitioner from custody
without subjecting him to conditions greater than those
provided in the December 1, 2023, Order of Release on
Recognizance;
C. 	Respondents are ordered to return Petitioner’s work permit,
driver’s license, and any other seized documents, property, or
effects seized during her arrest1;
D. 	Respondents are required to confirm Petitioner’s release from
custody by 5:00 p.m. Central Time on February 11, 2026;
1 The inclusion of requiring Petitioner’s personal effects to be included in his
release is a slight modification to Magistrate Judge Brisbois’ Report and
Recommendation. However, this Court believes that its inclusion is important
considering the frequency with which similarly situated petitioners in other cases
have been released without all their important personal belongings.
CASE 0:26-cv-00854-MJD-LIB Doc. 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
E. 	Respondents are precluded from re-detaining Petitioner on a
statutory theory this Court has rejected in this proceeding
absent materially changed circumstances; and
F. 	Respondents are ordered to show cause why they should not
be held in civil contempt for failing to return Petitioner to the
District of Minnesota in response to the Court’s Order to
Show Cause dated January 30, 2026. [Doc. 4.]. The briefing
schedule will be set as follows:
a. 	Respondents’ written submission is due no later than
5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2026;
b. 	If Petitioner intends to respond to Respondents’ written
submission, Petitioner must respond no later than 5:00
p.m. on February 13, 2026; and
c. 	Respondents’ reply to Petitioner’s response is due no
later than 5:00 p.m. on February 15, 2026.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 9, 2025 	s/Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00854-MJD-LIB Doc. 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 4