The opinion
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARIO GOMEZ-GOMEZ, )
) CASE NO. 3:26-CV-1041
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al., )
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
Respondents. ) ORDER
) [Resolving ECF Nos. 1 and 4]
This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Mario Gomez-Gomez’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The Court issued a Show Cause
Order on June 3, 2026, instructing Respondents to answer the allegations in the petition and
show cause as to why the petition should not be granted. ECF No. 3. Respondents responded
and moved to vacate the Court’s Order enjoining Respondents from removing Petitioner from
the Northern District of Ohio. ECF No. 4. Respondents explained that Petitioner was
transported from Ohio to Port Isabel in Texas on June 2, 2026, prior to the Court’s Show Cause
Order. ECF No. 4 at PageID #: 29. He is currently scheduled to be removed from the United
States on June 7, 2026, pursuant to a final removal order.1 ECF No. 4 at PageID #: 30; ECF No.
4-1.
A habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 must “be filed in the court having jurisdiction over
the [detainee’s] custodian.” Brown v. Young, No. 02-cv-2376, 2022 WL 17093073, at * 1 (W.D.
1 The Court lacks jurisdiction to review the commencement, adjudication, or
execution of a removal order. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g).
Tenn. Nov. 21, 2022) (citing Terrell v. United States, 564 F.2d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009)); see
Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314, 319 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that a district court only has
jurisdiction over a habeas petition, even in the immigration context, if it has personal jurisdiction
over the petitioner’s custodian.); see also Xu Guangshi v. Holder, No. 11 CV 1408, 2011 WL
5361050 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2011) (Zouhary, J.) (holding that once the petitioner was deported,
the court lacked jurisdiction to grant habeas relief.). Because Petitioner is currently detained in
Texas, which is outside the Northern District of Ohio, and is scheduled for deportation pursuant
to a final removal order (ECF No. 4-1) the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant his requested relief.
Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion to Vacate the Order Enjoining Petitioner’s Removal
from the Northern District of Ohio (ECF No. 4) is granted and the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The
Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be
taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 5, 2026 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge