Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
My C.,1
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-CV-1480 (DSD/JFD)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner My C. challenged her continued immigration detention in a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that was filed on February 17, 2026.
Petitioner asserted that her detention was unconstitutional because it exceeded the
presumptively reasonable six-month period established in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001), and there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future. (Pet. at 2, Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner was removed from the United States to Vietnam
on March 15, 2026, pursuant to a final order of removal. Accordingly, the Petition is moot,
and the Court recommends that it be denied as moot.
Petitioner entered the United States as a refugee in 1979. (Robinson Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt.
No. 6.) She became a Lawful Permanent Resident in 1981. (Id. ¶ 5.) Petitioner was
convicted of Assault with a Deadly Weapon in 2011 and incarcerated at the Central
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-01480-DSD-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 4

2
California Women’s Correctional Facility. (Id. ¶ 6 & Ex. A.) In 2012, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) located Petitioner at that facility and commenced
removal proceedings upon her release. (Id. ¶ 6.) On November 8, 2012, an immigration
judge ordered Petitioner removed from the United States to Vietnam. (Id. ¶ 8 & Ex. B.)
Petitioner waived appeal, and the order of removal became administratively final. (Id. ¶ 8.)
Petitioner was released on an order of supervision in 2013. (Id. ¶ 9 & Ex. C.)
While on supervision, Petitioner was convicted of Possession of Methamphetamine
with Intent to Distribute. (Id. ¶ 10.) Upon completion of her sentence for that conviction in
September 2025, her supervision was revoked, and she was re-detained by ICE at the
Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 16; 2d Robinson Decl. ¶ 8, Dkt.
No. 9.) In October 2025, ICE requested a travel document in furtherance of Petitioner’s
removal, and the request was approved and forwarded to the Vietnamese attaché on
December 16, 2025. (Robinson Decl. ¶¶ 12–13.) A travel document was issued by Vietnam
on January 16, 2026. (Id. ¶ 14 & Ex. D.) Petitioner was removed from the United States to
Vietnam on March 15, 2026. (2d Robinson Decl. ¶ 13, Dkt. No. 9.)
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, 91 (2013) (cleaned up).
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) (cleaned up). If an
CASE 0:26-cv-01480-DSD-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 4

3
action is moot because it no longer satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, a federal
court has “no discretion and must dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.” Id. at 724.
Petitioner has been removed from the United States. While this was presumably not
the outcome she desired, she is no longer in custody and, indeed, is no longer within the
jurisdiction of this Court. See id.; see Morley v. Trump, No. 25-CV-1580 (KMM/JFD),
2025 WL 1757639, at *1 (D. Minn. June 25, 2025) (“In a habeas action, the release of the
petitioner ordinarily means that the court can no longer provide effective relief and should
dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”). Petitioner can
no longer receive effective relief from this Court, and her Petition is therefore moot.2 See
Morley, 2025 WL 1757639, at *2.
There are several exceptions to mootness, however, and the Petition should not be
denied as moot if any of the following circumstances are present:
(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.
See Ahmed v. Sessions, No. 16-cv-2124 (DSD/HB), 2017 WL 3267738, at *2 (D. Minn.
July 11, 2017) (quoting Riley v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir. 2002)), R. & R.
adopted, 2017 WL 3268176 (D. Minn. July 31, 2017). None of these circumstances are
present here. First, there are no remaining secondary or collateral injuries apparent from
the record. Second, a period of continued immigration detention is unlikely to be repeated
2 Because the Petition is moot, the Court does not determine whether the revocation of
Petitioner’s supervised release and resulting immigration detention were lawful.
CASE 0:26-cv-01480-DSD-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 4

4
in light of Petitioner’s removal to Vietnam, and any re-detention would be based on new
facts, not the current record. Third, there is no basis to find that Respondent voluntarily
ceased an allegedly illegal practice that could be resumed at any time. Finally, this matter
is not a certified class action. Consequently, none of the exceptions to mootness apply here.
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner My C.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Dkt. No. 1) be DENIED AS MOOT and this matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated: March 30, 2026 s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
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 D. Minn.
LR 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-01480-DSD-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 4