govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02033-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA  
 
Abderrahim N., 
 
   Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
Sherburne County Jail and United States 
of America, 
 
   Respondents. 
 
Case No. 26-cv-02033 (NEB/ECW) 
 
 
 
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
 
 Petitioner Abderrahim N. commenced this action through a petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus challenging the legality of his detention during the pendency of removal 
proceedings that were then ongoing against him.  (See Dkt. 1.)  On April 14, 2026, the 
Court directed the government to respond to the habeas petition and show cause why 
habeas relief should not be granted to Petitioner.  (See Dkt. 4.)  Petitioner, in turn, was 
afforded seven days in which to submit a reply to the government’s response after that 
response was filed and served. 
 Two days later, on April 16, 2026, the government informed the Court that 
Petitioner had already been released from custody on order of the immigration judge 
presiding over Petitioner’s removal proceedings.  (See Dkt. 6.)  The government also 
submitted provided documentary evidence establishing that Petitioner had been released 
from custody prior to the Court’s order directing the government to respond to the habeas 
petition.  (See Dkt. 7-1 (Declaration of Pedro del Valle Ex. A).)  
CASE 0:26-cv-02033-NEB-ECW     Doc. 8     Filed 04/27/26     Page 1 of 4
2 
 
Meanwhile, the deadline for Petitioner to file a reply to the government’s response 
has passed, and Petitioner has not filed any such reply. 
 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, 90-91 
(2013) (citation modified).  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) (citation modified). 
 Such is the situation here.  By all indications, Petitioner has received the relief that 
he had been seeking: release from custody.  The Court “can no longer grant effective 
relief” to Petitioner.  See Ali, 419 F.3d at 723.  Because Petitioner has already been 
released from custody, nothing about his situation would change if the Court were to 
grant his habeas petition.  “This is the very definition of mootness.”  Kargbo v. Brott, No. 
15-CV-2713 (PJS/LIB), 2016 WL 3676162, at *2 (D. Minn. July 6, 2016). 
 Finally, no exception to the mootness doctrine appears to apply.
1  See Ahmed v. 
Sessions, No. 16-cv-2124 (DSD/HB), 2017 WL 3267738, at *2-3 (D. Minn. July 11, 
 
1 See Ahmed, 2017 WL 3267738, at *2-3 (listing four exceptions to the mootness 
doctrine, including that (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.).  
CASE 0:26-cv-02033-NEB-ECW     Doc. 8     Filed 04/27/26     Page 2 of 4
3 
 
2017).  For example, Petitioner’s release was prompted by an order of the immigration 
judge, not through a voluntary cessation of detention that the government is free to 
resume at any time.  Similarly, there is no specific reason to believe that Petitioner is 
likely to be held in immigration custody again—or, should he be so detained again, that it 
will be under the circumstances that led to the pending habeas petition being filed; this 
matter is therefore not one that presents a claim that is capable of repetition yet evades 
review due to the brevity of the harm inflicted. 
There is no longer anything at stake in this proceeding—and because there is 
nothing at stake, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.  The habeas petition should 
be denied without prejudice and this case dismissed on that basis. 
RECOMMENDATION 
 Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT 
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT: 
1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus of petitioner Abderrahim N. (Dkt. 
1) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. 
2. This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
Dated: April 27, 2026   /s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright   
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT 
United States Magistrate Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE 0:26-cv-02033-NEB-ECW     Doc. 8     Filed 04/27/26     Page 3 of 4
4 
 
 
 
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 Local 
Rule 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-02033-NEB-ECW     Doc. 8     Filed 04/27/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight