govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_26-cv-02363-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
RUTILIO ROSALES BARRERA, 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
v. Case No. 2:26-cv-02363-MSN-tmp 
 
CHRISTOPHER BULLOCK, 
 
Respondent. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING 
PETITION AS MOOT 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 
Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 10), filed April 9, 2026. Therein, the Government indicates that the § 
2241 Petition (ECF No. 2) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 
Injunction (ECF No. 3) should be denied and this case dismissed because Petitioner has already 
been deported from the United States. (ECF No. 10 at PageID 59.) 
Per the Government, “[o]n April 5, 2026, ICE removed the Petitioner to Mexic o.” (ECF 
No. 10-1 at PageID 65.) The relief Petitioner initially sought in this matter was immediate release 
or an individualized bond hearing. (ECF No. 2.) But this relief can no longer be granted, because 
Petitioner is no longer within the reach of this Court, whether it ordered release, a bond hearing, 
or otherwise. (ECF No. 10 at Page ID 60–61.) As such, the Government considers thi s matter 
moot. (ECF No. 10 at PageID 61.) 
Courts “may only adjudicate live cases or controversies.” Lathfield Invs., LLC v. City of 
Lathrup Vill., 136 F.4th 282, 292 (6th Cir. 2025). And the “ core” question of the “ mootness PageID
<pageID>
 2 
inquiry ‘is whether the relief sought would, if granted, make a difference to the legal interests of 
the parties.’” Id. (quoting McPherson v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass ’n, Inc., 119 F.3d 453, 458 
(6th Cir. 1997) (en banc) ). If—“ as a result of events during the pending of the litigation—the 
court’s decision would lack any practical effect, the case is moot.” Patton v. Fitzhugh, 131 F.4th 
383, 392 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Ohio v. US EPA, 969 F.3d 306, 308 (6th Cir. 2020)). 
Such is the case here. The Government ’s argument is well -taken, as any decision on the 
substance o f Petitioner ’s claims would “ lack any practical effect. ” Id. Accordingly, the 
Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No . 10) is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Motion for 
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) and § 2241 Petition (ECF 
No. 1) are DENIED AS MOOT. 
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of May, 2026. 
 
s/ Mark S. Norris 
MARK S. NORRIS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight