Coc-Che v. Tate et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Eric Coc-Che,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL NO. 4:26-CV-24
Warden Randy Tate, et al.,
Respondents.
JUDGE PALERMO’S
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION1
U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (“ICE”) detained Petitioner Eric
Coc-Che on November 14, 2025. ECF No. 1 ¶ 2. He filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus on January 2, 2026, challenging his detention. ECF No. 1.
On March 3, 2026, Respondents filed a response to the petition, ECF No. 7,
and notified the Court that “Petitioner’s appeal from the BIA was dismissed on . . .
February 19, 2026,” and that Petitioner was scheduled to be removed from the
United States on March 10, 2026, ECF No. 8 at 1. Petitioner was subsequently
removed the United States. ECF No. 11.
“A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when a case becomes moot.” Stocker
1 The district judge to whom this case is assigned referred all pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. ECF No. 4.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00024 Document 12 Filed 05/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
v. TDCJ Staff, No. 2:23-CV-00248, 2025 WL 2425197, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 24,
2025) (citing Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2013)). “A
case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a Case or Controversy for purposes of
Article III—when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Already, L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013)). “[W]hen the controversy
between parties ‘has resolved to the point that they no longer qualify as adverse
parties with sufficient legal interests to maintain the litigation, courts are without
power to entertain the case.’” Id. (internal quotation marks and original alteration
omitted) (quoting Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316, 324 (5th Cir.
2009)).
“[F]or a court to exercise habeas jurisdiction over a petitioner no longer in
custody, the petitioner must demonstrate that he was in custody at the time he filed
the petition and that his subsequent release has not rendered the petition moot, i.e.,
that he continues to present a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the
Constitution.” Etuk v. Bondi, No. 3:24-CV-02640-B (BT), 2025 WL 1908738, at *2
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2025) (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Zalawadia
v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2004)), adopted, No. 3:24-CV-02640-B
(BT), 2025 WL 1908169 (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2025). “A case or controversy may
Case 4:26-cv-00024 Document 12 Filed 05/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
continue to exist where ‘the petitioner is no longer detained but the claimed
violation’s adverse consequences continue.’” Id. (quoting Nieto Ramirez v. Holder,
583 F. App’x 330, 332 (5th Cir. 2014)). “For example, a habeas petition challenging
the grounds for removal is not moot once the petitioner is deported if there is some
persisting harm, such as a ban on reentry.” Id. (quoting Nieto, 583 F. App’x at 332).
However, a habeas petition is moot “if the petitioner’s ‘claimed grounds for relief
go only to [his] detention . . . [but] not the underlying removal proceedings or its
collateral consequences.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Nieto, 583 F. App’x
at 331–32); see also Kordia v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-01072-L-BT, 2026 WL 773087,
at *1–2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2026) (dismissing habeas petition as moot because
petitioner was released); Wilfredo R. v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1702-D-BK, 2025 WL
3520307, at *1–3 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2025) (same), adopted, No. 3:25-CV-1702-D,
2025 WL 3517779 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2025).
Here, Coc-Che’s petition challenges his detention—not the validity of his
removal order. ECF No. 1 ¶ 1 (“This case challenges an unlawful warrantless interior
arrest and continued civil detention that exceed statutory authority and violate the
Fourth and Fifth Amendments.”). Thus, the petition is now moot because the Court
can no longer award Coc-Che any relief related to the alleged due process and
statutory violations. Etuk, 2025 WL 1908738, at *3.
Case 4:26-cv-00024 Document 12 Filed 05/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of habeas case, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED AS MOOT without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed on May 6, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00024 Document 12 Filed 05/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4