govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_25-cv-01355-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
XUAN NGUYEN, ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1355-G 
 ) 
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney ) 
General, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Respondents.1 ) 
ORDER 
On November 15, 2025, Petitioner Xuan Nguyen, appearing through counsel, filed 
a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition,” Doc. No. 1) challenging his detention 
by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In 
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Chris 
M. Stephens for preliminary review. Certain Respondents2 filed an Answer (Doc. No. 12), 
and Petitioner filed a Reply (Doc. No. 19). 
 
1 Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Acting 
Attorney General of the United States Todd Blanche, and Cimarron Correctional Facility 
Warden Chris Gantt are hereby substituted as respondents for Kristi Noem, Pamela Bondi, 
and Scarlet Grant, respectively, pursuant to Rules 25(d) and 81(a)(4) of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure. 
2 Respondent Gantt has not appeared in this action. The appearing respondents are: Acting 
Attorney General Blanche; Secretary Mullin; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of ICE; 
Marcos Charles, Acting Executive Associate Director for Enforcement and Removal 
Operations (“ERO”); Mark Siegel, Field Office Director for ERO; ICE; and U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security. 

2 
On January 21, 2026, Judge Stephens issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 
No. 27), recommending that the Petition be dismissed as moot because Petitioner is no 
longer in ICE custody. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Stephens advised the 
parties of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation by February 4, 2026. 
Judge Stephens also advised that a failure to timely object would constitute a waiver of the 
right to appellate review of the factual findings and legal conclusions contained i n the 
Report and Recommendation. 
As of this date, no party has submitted an objection to the Report and 
Recommendation, sought leave for additional time to do so , or otherwise been in contact 
with the Court. 
CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 27) is ADOPTED in its 
entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED as moot. A 
separate judgment shall be entered. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2026. 
 

Passage view · GavelSight