Marco Olivera v. Lyons et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
RAFAEL M. O.1, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-500
§
TODD M. LYONS, et al., 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING
PETITIONER’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Petitioner Rafael M. O.’s “Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (Dkt. No. 1) and Respondents’ “Response to Petitioner for Writ
of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss” (Dkt. No. 8). Petitioner requests the Court order
Respondents, the Government, to release him and order declaratory relief regarding any
attempt to move or re-detain him. For the following reasons, it is recommended the Court
(1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) and (2) DISMISS the Government’s Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. No. 8) as MOOT.
Petitioner is a Venezuelan national currently detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement at the Port Isabel Detention Center in Cameron County, Texas. Petitioner was
granted Withholding of Removal on September 14, 2010, and on November 18, 2010, he
was placed on an Order of Supervision by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Dkt.
No. 1 at 7.2
Petitioner filed this habeas action challenging the lawfulness of his current
detention, which began on or about February 23, 2026. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Petitioner contests
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will
refer to the petitioner only by first name and last initial.
2 Petitioner claims compliance with his Order of Supervision over the past 16 years.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00500 Document 9 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
that the Government improperly revoked his Order of Supervision and argues this is a
violation of substantive and procedural due process rights owed to him under the Fifth
Amendment 	of 	U.S. Constitution; 	violations 	of 	the Administrative 	Procedure 	Act;
constitutes ultra vires action; and violates the Accardi Doctrine.3
In the response the instant Petition, the Government informed the Court that
Petitioner’s claims had been adjudicated recently by the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.4 See Olivera v. Mordant, No. 2:26-CV-547-KCD-
NPM, 2026 WL 1109406, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2026).
The Government argues the instant habeas action should be dismissed “under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(a) and the abuse of the writ doctrine.” Dkt. No. 8 at 1. However, the Court
notes that although the Middle District of Florida denied each one of the claims Petitioner
raises in the instant habeas action5, Olivera v. Mordant, 2026 WL 1109406, at *3-6, the
Middle District of Florida denied the Petition without prejudice, id. at *6. The Government
acknowledges that the Middle District of Florida denied the Petition without prejudice but
argues this was “only because Petitioner had not been detained long enough to invoke
Zadvydas.” Dkt. No. 8 at 2.6 While that may be one of the reasons the Petition was denied
without prejudice, the Middle District of Florida’s decision, nevertheless, does not appear
to bar Petitioner from filing another habeas action.
3 Petitioner claims to challenge his detention as a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
Dkt. No. 1 at 2, but does not elaborate beyond this point. As a result, the Court does not consider the Petition
to raise a challenge to the INA.
4 Petitioner did not inform the Court that he had previously filed a habeas action in a different federal court.
In fact, Petitioner stated that “[t]here has been no prior judicial review of this matter.” Dkt. No. 1 at 9, ¶ 44.
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Petitioner was represented by a different counselor in the
habeas action filed in the Middle District of Florida. See Case Information from Olivera v. Mordant, 2026
WL 1109406, at *1.
5 The Middle District of Florida also considered Petitioner’s argument based upon Petitioner’s former
Temporary Protected Status. Olivera v. Mordant, 2026 WL 1109406, at *2. Petitioner does not raise that
claim in the instant habeas action. See Dkt. No. 1.
6 In the Petition before the Court, Petitioner does not challenge his detention as unlawful under Zadvydas.
Case 1:26-cv-00500 Document 9 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Moreover, whether the instant petitioner constitutes an abuse of the writ, the Court
need not decide because after consideration of Petitioner’s claims, the Court agrees with
the reasoning employed by the Middle District of Florida. Olivera v. Mordant, 2026 WL
1109406, at *3-6.7 Accordingly, this Court finds that Petitioner cannot be afforded any
relief based upon the claims he brings before this Court.
It is RECOMMENDED that the Court (1) DENY the Petition; (2) DISMISS the
Government’s Motion to Dismiss as MOOT; and (3) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close
this case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an
objection, a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on
appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C.,
875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on June 22, 2026.
__________________________
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
7 Further, the Court notes that in the instant case, the Government informed the Court that it “fully complied
with the OSUP revocation procedures,” Dkt. No. 8 at 2, pursuant to the Court’s order at Dkt. No. 6.
Case 1:26-cv-00500 Document 9 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3