Head

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOHN MICHAEL HEAD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1529-R

)

SCARLET GRANT et al., )

)

Respondents. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pro se Petitioner John Michael Head, an immigration detainee under an

order of removal seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc.1.1

United States District Judge David L. Russell referred the matter to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 5. Because Petitioner is no longer in custody and this

Court can grant no relief to Petitioner, the undersigned recommends the Court

dismiss the petition and deny the outstanding motions as moot.

I. Petitioner’s claims.

Petitioner states in his petition that an Immigration Judge (IJ) entered

a final order of removal against him on October 6, 2006. Doc. 1, at 1 & Att. 1;

1 Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation

and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless

otherwise indicated.

Doc. 2. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) then released him on an

Order of Supervision (OOS). Doc. 1, at 7 (seeking immediate release on his

“previous order of supervision”). “ICE rearrested and redetain[ed]” him on

June 12, 2025. Id.

In four grounds for relief, Petitioner complains ICE is violating his due

process rights and its own regulations by keeping him in “prolonged detention”

without a bond or custody review hearing, and by re-detaining him without

prior notice or a change in his circumstances of release. Id. at 6-7. He requests

this Court order his immediate release on his previous OOS, order a custody

review “in front of a neutral decisionmaker,” restrain Respondents from

transferring him to another facility during the pendency of this action, and

declare there is no significant likelihood that ICE can remove him in the

reasonably foreseeable future. Id. at 7.

II. Respondents’ response and notices to the Court.

Respondents filed a response to the petition. Doc. 10. They noted that

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Brazil who entered the United States as a

legal permanent resident in 1982. Id. at 1-2. After several criminal convictions,

ICE placed Petitioner in removal proceedings and an IJ ordered his removal in

2006. Id. at 2. Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) was unable to

remove Petitioner to Brazil, so they released him on an OOS in January 2008.

Id. at 2-3.

In May 2024, Petitioner completed a travel document and ERO sent it to

the Brazilian consulate in Houston, Texas for approval. Id. at 3. Petitioner

moved to reopen his removal proceedings in June 2024, which the immigration

court denied in August 2024. Id. Respondents state petitioner appealed this

denial, and the appeal is “currently pending.” Id.

ICE detained Petitioner at his check-in appointment on June 12, 2025,

and issued a “Warrant of Removal/Deportation.” Id. Pending his removal, ICE

detained Petitioner at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing,

Oklahoma. Doc. 1, at 1. In August 2025, Petitioner filed a motion to stay

removal in the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) “which is currently

pending.” Id.2

On December 10, 2025, ERO sent a travel document request to the

Brazilian consulate in Houston. Id. At the time of the response on January 6,

2026, ERO was still facilitating Petitioner’s removal to Brazil. Id. However, on

January 12, 2026, Respondents filed a notice that they had scheduled

2 A review of Petitioner’s BIA case information shows no pending hearings

or appeals in the matter. See https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation

(A026-531-956) (last visited Mar. 4, 2026).

Petitioner to be moved “from [the Cimarron Correctional facility] in order to

execute his removal to Brazil after the expiration of 72 hours.” Doc. 11.3

On February 2, 2026, the undersigned ordered Respondents to update

the Court on Petitioner’s whereabouts. Doc. 14. Respondents filed a notice on

February 12, 2026, stating that “Petitioner had been scheduled for removal.”

Doc. 18. Respondents moved Petitioner to the Pine Prairie Processing Center

in Louisiana on February 9, 2026, and were removing him to Brazil on

February 25, 2026. Id. The undersigned’s check of the ICE detainee locator for

Petitioner yielded no results as Petitioner is no longer in the system. See

https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited Mar. 4, 2026).

III. Screening.

This Court must review a habeas petition and dismiss it “[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts;4 see also Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d

3 In its initial order for response to the petition, the undersigned ordered

Respondents to provide the Court with at least 72-hours “advance notice” of

their intent to move Petitioner. See Doc. 6, at 2. Petitioner objected to

Respondents’ notice stating he had no knowledge of the issuance of any travel

document to Brazil. Doc. 12, at 2.

4 The Court may apply the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases to habeas

petitions arising under § 2241. See Rule 1(b); Whitmore v. Parker, 484 F. App’x

227, 231 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The Rules Governing 2254 Cases may be applied

1198, 1205 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding that a federal court possesses “the

discretion . . . to dismiss the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition if it appear[s] that the

petitioner was not entitled to relief”). Having screened the petition, the

undersigned recommends the Court dismiss the petition as moot.

IV. The petition is moot because Petitioner is no longer in custody.

“The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . he is

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “[T]he ‘in custody’ requirement of § 2241 is

satisfied” if a petitioner files the habeas application while they are

incarcerated. King v. Ciolli, 2024 WL 1179908, at *2 (10th Cir. Mar. 19, 2024)

(citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998), & Riles v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253,

1256 (10th Cir. 2002)).

A § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the prisoner is

confined. Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011).

“[J]urisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is

not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial

change.” Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985);

cf. Rumsfield v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004).

discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241.” (citing Boutwell v. Keating,

399 F.3d 1203, 1211 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005))).

Petitioner was confined in this district when he filed his § 2241 petition.

See Doc. 1, at 1. But he is no longer in custody as Respondents have removed

him to his home country of Brazil. See Doc 18. Although this Court’s

jurisdiction attached when Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition, his

release from custody renders his petition moot.

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may only adjudicate

live controversies. See Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 92 (2009) (“An actual

controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the

complaint is filed.” (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975))). A

case becomes moot “if an event occurs while a case is pending . . . that makes

it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing

party . . . .” Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992)

(quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).

“Mootness . . . is a fundamental bar to judicial review that must be

accounted for at all stages of a proceeding, and applies in habeas as in any

other type of litigation.” Miller v. Glanz, 331 F. App’x 608, 610 (10th Cir. 2009).

A habeas petition does not become moot merely because a petitioner is no

longer in custody. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the petitioner is

subject to collateral consequences “adequate to meet Article III’s injury-in-fact

requirement.” King, 2024 WL 1179908, at *2 (quoting Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14).

Once Respondents released Petitioner from their custody, he no longer

had a redressable injury arising from his “prolonged” detention. See id.

(holding that a “petitioner must demonstrate some concrete and continuing

injury” to overcome mootness after release from custody (quoting Spencer, 523

U.S. at 7)). So the best this Court could do would be to declare he was

wrongfully in custody in the first place. But that determination and

Petitioner’s request for the Court to either stay or prevent Respondents from

executing the removal order, is wholly outside this Court’s jurisdiction. See,

e.g., Olola v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2018 WL 11446899, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 7, 2018)

(“Applicant may not use a § 2241 habeas application challenging the

lawfulness of federal custody to seek review of an order of removal in federal

district court. . . . The courts of appeals are the sole and exclusive means for

judicial review of challenges to removal orders, and district courts are divested

of jurisdiction to do so.” (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)); see also Ferry v. Gonzales,

457 F.3d 1117, 1131 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The district court lacked jurisdiction to

consider Ferry’s petition insofar as it challenged the DHS’s administrative

order of removal.”); Essuman v. Gonzales, 203 F. App’x 204, 211 (10th Cir.

2006) (“The Real ID Act eliminates a district court’s jurisdiction over habeas

petitions challenging final orders of removal.” (internal quotation marks

omitted)); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5); (b)(8)(C); (b)(9). So the Court should dismiss

the petition as moot.

V. Recommendation and notice of right to object.

Petitioner’s release from custody and removal to Brazil renders his

petition moot because there is no live case or controversy for this Court to

decide. The undersigned therefore recommends the Court dismiss the habeas

corpus petition as moot. Doc. 1. The undersigned also recommends the Court

deny as moot Petitioner’s motions to expedite. Docs. 15, 17.

The undersigned advises the parties of their right to file an objection to

this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before March

18, 2026, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The

undersigned further advises the parties that failure to file a timely objection

to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of

both factual and legal issues contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950

F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).

This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates

the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.

ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2026.

hea Ler _

SUZANNE MITCHELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE