Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-01429-2

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2026-06-09

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:35:29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA  
 
S.M., 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General 
of the United States; MARKWAYNE 
MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security; TODD M. LYONS, 
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement; and DAVID 
EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St. Paul 
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, 
 
 Respondents. 
 
 
Civil No. 26-639 (JRT/DTS) 
 
CASE 0:26-cv-01429-JRT-JFD     Doc. 42     Filed 06/09/26     Page 1 of 7
2 
 
CHRISTIAN A.S.C., 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General 
of the United States; MARKWAYNE 
MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security; TODD M. LYONS, 
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement; DAVID 
EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St. Paul 
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement; MARY DE ANDA-
YBARRA, Director, El Paso Field Office, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
and WARDEN, Director of the El Paso 
Camp East Montana, 
 
Respondents. 
 
 
Civil No. 26-778 (JRT/LIB) 
 
RIKY A.M.L., 
 
   P e t i t i o n e r ,  
 
v. 
 
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General 
of the United States; MARKWAYNE 
MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security; and TODD M. LYONS, 
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement,  
 
   Respondents. 
 
 
 
Civil No. 26-1429 (JRT/JFD) 
 
 
 
 
CASE 0:26-cv-01429-JRT-JFD     Doc. 42     Filed 06/09/26     Page 2 of 7
3 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASES 
Beginning in late 2025 and continuing in to the early months of 2026, the federal 
government deployed more than 3,000 federa l immigration agents across the state of 
Minnesota.  As part of this “Operation Me tro Surge,” thousands of Minnesota residents 
were arrested and detained—and many were  rapidly transferred out of the state to 
detention facilities across the country.1  Thousands of individuals sought habeas relief in 
federal court stemming from these arrests. 2  In the above-captioned cases, Petitioners 
filed habeas petitions challenging the la wfulness of their arrest and detention. 3  In each 
case, after the Court ordered Petitioners’ release from custody, Respondents failed to 
return personal property that had been  confiscated from Petitioners upon their 
arrest—including identification documents, phones, and other items. 
 On March 5, 2026, the Cour t held a consolidated he aring for the three above-
captioned cases and two others (Civ. No. 26-424, J.B.C.O. v. Bondi  and Civ. No. 26-832, 
 
1 See generally Jeff Day and Ryan Faircloth, Reckoning, Retribution and Resistance , Minnesota 
Star Tribune,  Apr. 5, 2026, at A1, available at https://www.startribune.com/reckoning-
retribution-and-resistance-the-behind-the-scenes-story-of-operation-metro-surge/601583420 
(last accessed on June 5, 2026) [https://perma.cc/5ETT-KW8X]. 
 
2 See generally Max Nesternak, Lawyers filed over 1,000 lawsuits challenging immigrant 
detentions during Operation Metro Surge , Minnesota Reformer  (Feb. 19, 2026), 
https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/02/19/lawyers-filed-over-1000-lawsuits-challenging-
immigrant-detentions-during-operation-metro-surge/ (last accessed June 5, 2026) 
[https://perma.cc/3XPY-ARJ2]. 
 
3 While this Order concerns issues related to Petitioners’ physical property, the factual and 
procedural history relating to Petitioners’ arrests may be found in previous Or ders in each 
respective case. 
CASE 0:26-cv-01429-JRT-JFD     Doc. 42     Filed 06/09/26     Page 3 of 7
4 
 
Rosmary N.A. v. Easterwood) to address Respondents’ ongoing failure to comply with the 
Court’s orders to return all of Petitioners’ property.  Each Petitioner had counsel present 
to speak on their behalf.  U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota Daniel Rosen and a 
representative from the St. Paul Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement spoke on behalf of Respondents.   Respondents indica ted their intent to 
continue searching for Petitioners’ property  and committed to fulfill any claims for lost 
property that Petitioners wished to file under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).   
Following the hearing, the Court issued an Order directing Respondents to: (1) 
facilitate the replacement of any missing  employee authorization documents; (2) 
“facilitate and reimburse all FTCA claims submitted by Petitioners” for lost property; and 
(3) return any physical property that is ultimately found.  J.B.C.O. v. Bondi , Civ. No. 26-
424, 2026 WL 638455, at *6 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2026).  The Co urt stated that “[a]bsent 
prompt resolution of Petitioners’ property claims, the Court will issue a further order to 
show cause regarding the necessity of daily civil fines to ensure compliance” with the 
Court’s orders.  Id.  The Court also scheduled a hearin g for 30 days after the issuance of 
the Court’s March 6 Order.  Id. 
 Thereafter, the parties kept the Court a ppraised of Respondents’ ongoing efforts 
to remedy Petitioners’ property issues , and the Court twice continued further 
proceedings.   
The parties have now repres ented to the Court that a ll disputes relating to 
Petitioners’ property have been resolved. 
CASE 0:26-cv-01429-JRT-JFD     Doc. 42     Filed 06/09/26     Page 4 of 7
5 
 
• In J.B.C.O. v. Bondi, Respondents returned some of the Petitioners’ identification 
documents and facilitated the replacemen t of one of the other Petitioner’s 
employment authorization documents.  ( See Civ. No. 26-424, Docket No. 36.)  
Judgment has been entered in that case. 
• In S.M. v. Bondi , Petitioner’s personal belongings were eventually returned, but 
she submitted an FTCA claim relating to  the costs imposed by her detention, 
including those related to her lack of access to her cell phone (which was not 
returned until weeks after she had been released from custody).  The parties have 
advised the Court that Petitioner has received payment.  ( See Civ. No. 26-639, 
Docket No. 54.) 
• In Christian A.S.C. v. Bondi , Petitioner’s missing iden tification documents were 
eventually located and returned to Petitioner but only after he had been without 
any identity document or his driver’s license for weeks.  ( See Civ. No. 26-778, 
Docket No. 18.)  Petitioner Christian A.S.C.  also submitted an FTCA claim relating 
to his detention, and the parties have advised the Court that Petitioner has 
received payment.  (See Civ. No. 26-778, Docket No. 36.) 
• In Rosmary N.A. v. Easterwood , a backpack containing Petitioner’s belongings 
(including a phone, watch, and other item s) was finally returned to her.  ( See Civ. 
No. 26-832, Docket No. 33.)  While Petitioner Rosmar y N.A. reported $42 in 
currency was missing from the backpack, Petitioner did not file an FTCA claim 
CASE 0:26-cv-01429-JRT-JFD     Doc. 42     Filed 06/09/26     Page 5 of 7
6 
 
following the Court’s March 6, 2026 Order.   Judgment has been entered in that 
case. 
• In Riky A.M.L. v. Bondi, Respondents returned Petitioner’s social security card and 
facilitated the replacement of Petitioner ’s employment authorization document.  
(See Civ. No. 26-1429, Docket No. 19.)  Petition er Riky A.M.L. al so filed an FTCA 
claim stemming from his detention seek ing compensation for tools lost by 
Respondents—tools that he needed to perform his job.  The parties have advised 
the Court that Petitioner has received payment.  (Civ. No. 26-1429, Docket No. 39.) 
Because no ongoing issues related to Respo ndents compliance with this Court’s orders 
remain, the Court will enter judgment in the remaining open cases (Civil Nos. 26-639, 26-
778, and 26-1429).   
The Court remains troubled that its intervention was necessary to compel 
compliance with its orders, and to ensure th e safety, liberty, and well-being of persons 
who were subject to unlawful arrest and detention.  The Court regrets the hardship 
imposed on Petitioners by the United States Government. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE 0:26-cv-01429-JRT-JFD     Doc. 42     Filed 06/09/26     Page 6 of 7
7 
 
ORDER 
Based on the foregoing, and all the file s, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Civil Cases 26-639, 26-778, and 26-1429 shall be closed. 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
 
 
DATED: June 8, 2026     
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
   United States District Judge 
CASE 0:26-cv-01429-JRT-JFD     Doc. 42     Filed 06/09/26     Page 7 of 7

Passage view · GavelSight