# Son

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · February 9, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11295987

## Case

- **Full name:** Cuong Vu Son v. Warden
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** February 9, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11295987

## Opinion text

a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

CUONG VU SON #A027-374-431, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-01189
Petitioner SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE DRELL

WARDEN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
Respondents

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Cuong Vu Son (“Son”). At the time of filing, Son was
an immigration detainee at the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena,
Louisiana. Son challenges his continued detention and the procedures used to re-
detain him.
Because Son is no longer detained, the Petition should be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
I. Background
Son is a native of Vietnam who was ordered removed on May 27, 1999.1 He
was released on an order of supervision on an unspecified date. Son alleges that ICE
improperly revoked his order of supervision and re-detained him on March 12, 2025.
ECF No. 9 at 4. Son also alleges that his removal is not substantially likely to occur

1 https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation
in the reasonably foreseeable future because he has been in the United States for over
26 years and does not have a Vietnamese passport or travel documents.
The online detainee locator service indicates that Son is no longer detained.2

II. Law and Analysis
Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to
the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.”
, 551 U.S. 587, 597 (2007) (quoting , 547
U.S. 332, 342 (2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted)). A case becomes
moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally

cognizable interest in the outcome.” , 445
U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (quoting , 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)).
The case-or-controversy requirement “subsists through all stages of federal
judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” , 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)
(citations omitted). The parties must continue to have a “personal stake in the
outcome” of the lawsuit. Therefore, throughout the litigation, the petitioner
“must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the

defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”
Because Son is not detained, the § 2241 claim is moot.
, 3:19-CV-976, 2019 WL 3468909 (N.D. Tex. 2019) (collecting cases),
, 2019 WL 3459817 (N.D. Tex. 2019). If a controversy
is moot, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. , 582 F.2d 14, 16

2 https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search
(5th Cir. 1978) (citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971); Locke v. Board
of Public Instruction, 499 F.2d 359, 363-364 (5th Cir. 1974)).
Ill. Conclusion
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file
written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service,
unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b). A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and
Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court
grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.
No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted
for good cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions
adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”
SIGNED on Monday, February 9, 2026.
"THEE
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11295987. Public record. Not legal advice.