E.J.C.F. et al v. Kennedy, Jr. et al

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
E.J.C.F., et al.,
Petitioners,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00053
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioners E.J.C.F. and M.A.C.F., siblings and minors from Honduras, were, at the
time of filing this case, being detained as unaccompanied children at the Upbring
Bokenkamp Children’s Shelter in Corpus Christi, Texas. Represented by counsel, on
February 10, 2026, Petitioners, through their Next Friend and sister Dulce Maria Carcamo
Flores, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge their
continued detention. (D.E. 1).
Pending is Respondents’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss filed on March 10, 2026,
requesting this case be dismissed as moot because Petitioners “have been released from
detention through the reunification process with their sister.” (D.E. 20, Pages 1 and 3 and
D.E. 21). The only relief sought in this matter was the Petitioners’ challenge to their
continued detention and request for reunification with their sister. Generally, a petition for
habeas corpus relief becomes moot when a prisoner is released from custody before the
court has addressed the merits of the petition. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982). As
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00053 Document 23 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
Petitioners are no longer in custody and are now in their sister’s custody, their grounds for
relief in this action are moot, their petition no longer presents a live controversy and this
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider their claims. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496
(1969) (A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’”); American
Med. Ass’n v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 1988) (“If a dispute has been resolved
or if it has evanesced because of changed circumstances, including the passage of time, it
is considered moot.”); Escobar v. Barr, 824 F. App’x 300, 300-301 (5th Cir. 2020) (“If,
during the pendency of litigation, the complaining party receives the relief he originally
sought to obtain in court, the action must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.”) Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED as moot. (D.E. 20).
Respectfully submitted on March 16, 2026.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00053 Document 23 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of
plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Case 2:26-cv-00053 Document 23 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3