Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Claudio A.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 26-cv-742 (KMM/LIB)
ORDER
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated February 12, 2026, United States
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommends that Petitioner Claudio A.A.’s Petition for a
writ of habeas corpus be granted and Claudio A.A. be released in Minnesota immediately.
(Dkt. 13.) Judge Brisbois set an expediated schedule for objections to the R&R, with
objections due by February 14, 2026. Respondents did not object to this recommended
disposition by the deadline, and still have not done so four days later. Therefore, the Court
has reviewed the matter for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949
(D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). The Court finds no error and adopts the R&R.
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The R&R (Dkt. 13) is ACCEPTED.
2. 	Petitioner 	Claudio 	A.A.’s 	Petition 	for 	a 	writ 	of 	habeas 	corpus 	(Dkt. 	1) 	is
GRANTED.
CASE 0:26-cv-00742-KMM-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 2

3. 	The 	Court 	ORDERS 	Respondents 	to 	immediately 	release 	Claudio 	A.A. 	in
Minnesota, and without any new conditions, no later than 5:00 PM on February
19, 2026.
4. 	Further, the Court ORDERS Respondents file a notice on ECF by no later than
12:00 PM on February 20, 2026 certifying the date, time, and location of Claudio
A.A.’s release. If Claudio A.A. has not been released by that time, then Respondents
shall advise the Court about the reasons his release has not occurred, and the specific
steps Respondents are undertaking to ensure his immediate release in Minnesota.
5. 	Respondents must release Claudio A.A. with all of his personal property and
documents. That property may not be altered by Respondents and must be returned
in the same condition as when it was taken.
6. 	In the R&R, Judge Brisbois recommended that Respondents be Ordered to Show
Cause for transferring Petitioner to Texas after the entry of an Order prohibiting
them from doing so. (Dkt. 13 at 17 ¶ 7.) The Court assumes that the Petitioner has
long since been returned to the District of Minnesota. If that is incorrect and
Petitioner 	is 	instead 	in 	Texas, 	Respondents 	are 	required 	to 	also 	submit 	a
memorandum of law and any necessary supporting documentation explaining why
he was not returned to the District promptly after the Court’s Order, or promptly
after the issuance of the R&R.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 18, 2026 	s/ Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00742-KMM-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 2