# Torres

> District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · April 28, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11327981

## Case

- **Full name:** Breny Ariel Flores Torres v. Scarlet Grant, Warden, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 28, 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/11327981

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that petitioner met the “in custody” requirement of § 2241 because he was “in custody at the time of filing” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241)
- noting a § 2241 petition “must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined”
- declining “to issue an advisory opinion regarding [petitioner’s] entitlement to a bond hearing because a declaratory judgment on that question would have no meaningful effect on the [immigration officials’] future conduct” with him
- noting that petitioner met the “in custody” requirement of § 2241 because he was “in custody at the time of filing” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241)

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRENY ARIEL FLORES TORRES, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-260-G
)
SCARLET GRANT, Warden, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Breny Ariel Flores Torres, a noncitizen detainee proceeding with counsel,
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). Doc. 1. Petitioner challenges under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).
United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred this matter to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Because Petitioner is
no longer in ICE custody and this Court can grant no relief to him, the undersigned
recommends the Court dismiss the Petition as moot.
I. Background and Petitioner’s Claims
Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador. Pet. at 1. Immigration authorities
encountered Petitioner on the Texas border on March 18, 2019, and placed him into
removal proceedings. Resp. at 7. A Notice to Appear charged him with being inadmissible
as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Id. In February
2025, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed, and ICE re-detained him in July
2025. Pet. at 4; Resp. at 8. Petitioner claims the government violated his procedural and
substantive due process rights by detaining him without a bond hearing. Pet. at 5-6. He
challenges his detention and seeks immediate release. Id. When Petitioner filed his
Petition on February 12, 2026, he was detained at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in

Cushing, Oklahoma. Id. at 3.
On April 6, 2026, Respondents advised the Court that the Board of Immigration
Appeals had affirmed an order of removal issued against Petitioner. Doc. 21 at 1. On
April 22, 2026, Respondent further advised “Petitioner was transferred out of this District
on April 14, 2026, and on April 21, 2026, he was removed from the United States to his
home country of El Salvador.” Doc. 23 at 1. As such, Respondents argued “this action

has been rendered moot and should be dismissed.” Id. at 2. The undersigned has separately
confirmed Petitioner’s location in ICE custody no longer appears on ICE’s Online Detainee
Locator System, at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited Apr. 28, 2026).
II. Standard of Review
To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show he is “in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
“Challenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly through habeas.”
Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001)).
“Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is

a constitutional prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction.” McClendon v. City of
Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996). “Because mootness is a matter of
jurisdiction, a court may raise the issue sua sponte.” Id.
III. Analysis
Petitioner properly filed his Petition in this district because he was detained here at
the time of filing. Doc. 1 at 3; Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting

a § 2241 petition “must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined”). Petitioner
satisfied the “in custody” requirement under § 2241 “at the time the petition was filed.”
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); see also Riley v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253, 1256 (10th
Cir. 2002) (noting that petitioner met the “in custody” requirement of § 2241 because he
was “in custody at the time of filing” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241)). “The more substantial

question, however, is whether petitioner’s subsequent release caused the petition to be
moot because it no longer presented a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the
Constitution.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to ‘cases’ and
‘controversies.’” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 160 (2016) (quoting U.S.

Const. art. III, § 2). “In order to invoke federal-court jurisdiction, a [petitioner] must
demonstrate that he possesses a legally cognizable interest, or personal stake, in the
outcome of the action.” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71 (2013)
(citation modified). This means “an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of
review, not merely at time the [petition] is filed.” Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520

U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (citation modified). “If an intervening circumstance deprives the
[petitioner] of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, at any point during litigation,
the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” Genesis Healthcare
Corp., 569 U.S. at 72 (citation modified). “A case becomes moot only when it is
impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox
v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (citation modified).

Here, Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and has been removed to his home
country of El Salvador. Though jurisdiction attached in this district when Petitioner filed
his Petition here, his subsequent removal from the United States and release from ICE
custody may render his Petition moot. The Petition does not become moot, however,
merely because Petitioner has been removed from the country. If a petitioner “has been
released from custody while his or her habeas petition is pending, a court’s jurisdiction

depends upon the existence of ‘collateral consequences . . . adequate to meet Article III’s
injury-in-fact requirement.’” King v. Ciolli, No. 23-1201, 2024 WL 1179908, at *2 (10th
Cir. Mar. 19, 2024) (quoting Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14). To overcome mootness after release
from custody, a petitioner must show “some concrete and continuing injury” “if the suit is
to be maintained.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.

Petitioner challenges his detention, and not his underlying removal order. Courts
have concluded a petitioner’s release from immigration custody mooted his habeas
challenge to the legality of his detention, where the only possible “continuing injury” or
collateral consequence “stems from his removal order, not his detention.” Ferry v.
Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006). Further, any determination now as to

whether Petitioner’s detention violated his due process rights would amount to an advisory
opinion that this Court cannot issue. Id. (declining “to issue an advisory opinion regarding
[petitioner’s] entitlement to a bond hearing because a declaratory judgment on that question
would have no meaningful effect on the [immigration officials’] future conduct” with him).
Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, and the relief he requests is no longer
available and cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. The undersigned is not

aware from the record of any collateral consequences to Petitioner that would constitute an
exception to the mootness doctrine. As such, Petitioner’s habeas challenge to his detention
no longer presents a case or controversy subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, and the Petition
should be dismissed as moot. See, e.g., Sule v. I.N.S., 189 F.3d 478, 1999 WL 668716, at
*1 (10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision) (concluding an immigration detainee’s
release from immigration custody through deportation “mooted his challenge to the legality

of his detention”); Mounivong v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1483-PRW, 2025 WL 3907008 (W.D.
Okla. Dec. 22, 2025) (recommending dismissal of habeas petition as moot when petitioner
was removed to home country and no longer in ICE custody) (R&R), adopted, 2026 WL
69364 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 8, 2026); Souphanthong v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1220-D, Doc. 16
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2025) (same) (R&R), adopted, Doc. 20 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025);

Bolom Vazquez v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1191-J, Doc. 12 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 6, 2025) (same)
(R&R), adopted, Doc. 13 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 21, 2025).
IV. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
Petitioner’s release from ICE custody and removal to El Salvador render his Petition
moot, as there is no longer an actual case or controversy for the Court to decide. The

undersigned therefore recommends that the Court DISMISS the Petition, Doc. 1, as moot.
The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed not later than May 5, 2026. See id.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party wishes to respond to the other party’s
objections, such response must be filed not later than May 8, 2026. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate review of the factual and
legal issues addressed in this Report and Recommendation. See Moore v. United States,
950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 28" day of April, 2026.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11327981. Public record. Not legal advice.