The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
ARTEM KONEV DOCKET NO. 2:25-cv-00608
SECTION P
VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
JAMIEN A. ARWIE, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. Rec. Doc. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 5, 2025, Artem Konev, Petitioner, filed an application with this Court through
which he sought the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing his release from the custody of
the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Doc. 1. According to the
petition, Konev is a native and a citizen of Russia. Doc. 1, p. 3. In addition, he is a permanent
resident of Brazil. Id. at p. 4. On July 2, 2025, he was removed from ICE’s custody to the country
of Brazil. See Declaration of Charles G. Ward, Acting Assistant Field Office Director, doc. 7-2.
II. LAW & APPLICATION
An action is moot “when the court cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party.”
Salgado v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 220 F. App'x 256, 257 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Brown v. Resor,
407 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 1969) and Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987)).
The issue of whether a case is moot presents a jurisdictional matter because it implicates the Article
III requirement that an actual controversy exist at all stages of federal court proceedings. Bailey,
821 F.2d at 278. A moot case “presents no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no
constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issue it presents.” Adair v. Dretke, 150 Fed. App’x. 329,
331 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
In the instant case, Mr. Konev has been removed from the United States and repatriated to
the country of Brazil. Doc. 7-2. As such, Mr. Konev’s petition for habeas relief under Zadvydas
is now moot.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Government (rec. doc.
7), be GRANTED, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice,
and this proceeding be terminated.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved
by this recommendation have fourteen (14) business days from service of this report and
recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond
to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any
objections or response to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal
conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days following the
date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved
party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District
-2-
Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See, Douglass v. United Services Automobile
Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this 21st day of July, 2025.
AS P. LEBLANC
UNITED S®¥TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3.