Nasri v. Sherburne County Jail et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abderrahim N.,
Petitioner,
v.
Sherburne County Jail and United States
of America,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-02033 (NEB/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Abderrahim N. commenced this action through a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus challenging the legality of his detention during the pendency of removal
proceedings that were then ongoing against him. (See Dkt. 1.) On April 14, 2026, the
Court directed the government to respond to the habeas petition and show cause why
habeas relief should not be granted to Petitioner. (See Dkt. 4.) Petitioner, in turn, was
afforded seven days in which to submit a reply to the government’s response after that
response was filed and served.
Two days later, on April 16, 2026, the government informed the Court that
Petitioner had already been released from custody on order of the immigration judge
presiding over Petitioner’s removal proceedings. (See Dkt. 6.) The government also
submitted provided documentary evidence establishing that Petitioner had been released
from custody prior to the Court’s order directing the government to respond to the habeas
petition. (See Dkt. 7-1 (Declaration of Pedro del Valle Ex. A).)
CASE 0:26-cv-02033-NEB-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Meanwhile, the deadline for Petitioner to file a reply to the government’s response
has passed, and Petitioner has not filed any such reply.
The United States Constitution limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal
courts to ongoing cases and controversies. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “[A]n
actual [case or] controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but
through all stages of the litigation.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90-91
(2013) (citation modified). When “the issues presented in a case lose their life because of
the passage of time or a change in circumstances and a federal court can no longer grant
effective relief, the case is considered moot.” Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723 (8th Cir.
2005) (citation modified).
Such is the situation here. By all indications, Petitioner has received the relief that
he had been seeking: release from custody. The Court “can no longer grant effective
relief” to Petitioner. See Ali, 419 F.3d at 723. Because Petitioner has already been
released from custody, nothing about his situation would change if the Court were to
grant his habeas petition. “This is the very definition of mootness.” Kargbo v. Brott, No.
15-CV-2713 (PJS/LIB), 2016 WL 3676162, at *2 (D. Minn. July 6, 2016).
Finally, no exception to the mootness doctrine appears to apply.1 See Ahmed v.
Sessions, No. 16-cv-2124 (DSD/HB), 2017 WL 3267738, at *2-3 (D. Minn. July 11,
1 	See Ahmed, 2017 WL 3267738, at *2-3 (listing four exceptions to the mootness
doctrine, including that (1) secondary or “collateral” injuries survive after resolution of
the primary injury; (2) the issue is deemed a wrong capable of repetition yet evading
review; (3) the defendant voluntarily ceases an allegedly illegal practice but is free to
resume it at any time; or (4) it is a properly certified class action suit.).
CASE 0:26-cv-02033-NEB-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 4

3
2017). For example, Petitioner’s release was prompted by an order of the immigration
judge, not through a voluntary cessation of detention that the government is free to
resume at any time. Similarly, there is no specific reason to believe that Petitioner is
likely to be held in immigration custody again—or, should he be so detained again, that it
will be under the circumstances that led to the pending habeas petition being filed; this
matter is therefore not one that presents a claim that is capable of repetition yet evades
review due to the brevity of the harm inflicted.
There is no longer anything at stake in this proceeding—and because there is
nothing at stake, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. The habeas petition should
be denied without prejudice and this case dismissed on that basis.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	The petition for a writ of habeas corpus of petitioner Abderrahim N. (Dkt.
1) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
2. 	This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: April 27, 2026 	/s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-02033-NEB-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local
Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits
set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-02033-NEB-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 4