Oset Machado v. Prairieland Detention Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EUSEBIO OSET MACHADO, §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:25-cv-3552-L (BT)
§
PRARIELAND DETENTION
CENTER,
§
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Eusebio Oset Machado filed a pro se habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his post-removal-order detention was unlawful and
seeking immediate release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
custody. Pet. at 6-7 (ECF No. 3). But Petitioner was removed from the United
States after filing his petition. See Respondent Response to Pet. at 1 (ECF No. 14).
Accordingly, the District Judge should DISMISS Petitioner’s petition as moot.
Legal Standards and Analysis
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-
court jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” United States Parole Cmm’n v.
Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot and no longer presents
a case or controversy if an event occurs during the pendency of the action “that
makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to the
prevailing party.” Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992);
see also Motient Corp. v. Dondero, 529 F.3d 532, 537 (5th Cir. 2008)).
Here, Petitioner challenged his detention in ICE’s custody prior to his
removal from the United States. See Pet. at 7. But Petitioner was removed from the
country and is no longer in ICE custody. See Respondent Response to Pet. at 1.
Therefore, the Court cannot grant Petitioner the relief that he seeks and should
Case 3:25-cv-03552-L-BT Document 15 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
dismiss his petition without prejudice as moot. See, e.g., Chay v. Holder, 470 F.
App’x 406, 06-07 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); United States v. Boston, 419 F.
App’x 505, 506 (2011) (per curiam) (“If the only relief sought by [a petitioner]
cannot be granted, the case is moot.”); see also Oguntuyi v. Manuel, 2025 WL
2399184, at *2 (W.D. La. July 21, 2005) (“Here, Petitioner challenged the
lawfulness of his continued detention. Because Petitioner is no longer detained and
has been removed from the United States, the § 2241 petition is moot.”), rec.
accepted 2025 WL 2398645 (W.D. La. Aug. 18, 2025).
Recommendation
The District Judge should DISMISS Petitioner Eusebio Oset Machado’s 28
U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition as moot.
SO RECOMMENDED.
March 16, 2026.
______________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination
is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written
objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district
court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:25-cv-03552-L-BT Document 15 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>