Mena

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

YULIESKY COLINA MENA DOCKET NO. 6:26-CV-00679

VERSUS JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH

U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

by pro se petitioner Yuliesky Colina Mena on March 5, 2026. Doc. 1. At the time of filing,

Petitioner was detained at the Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana. This

matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this Court.

Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that he was being

detained by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) without pending

removal proceedings or a removal order and that he had been detained without lawful statutory

basis or a meaningful custody review.

The United States Attorney’s Office has confirmed with the Court that while the matter

was pending, Petitioner was removed on May 21, 2026. Therefore, his petition is moot and should

be dismissed. See, e.g., Oguntuyi v. Manuel, No. 2:24-CV-1069, 2025 WL 2399184, at *2 (W.D.

La. July 21, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24- CV-1069, 2025 WL 2398645

(W.D. La. Aug. 18, 2025) (“Here, Petitioner challenged the lawfulness of his continued detention.

Because Petitioner is no longer detained and has been removed from the United States, the § 2241

petition is moot.”); Francis v. Lynch, 622 F. App’x 455, 455-56 (5th Cir. 2015) (challenge to length

of detention awaiting removal became moot when the petitioner was removed); Odus v. Ashcroft,

61 F. App’x 121 (Sth Cir. 2003) (same). If a controversy is moot, the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction. Carr v. Saucier, 582 F.2d 14, 16 (Sth 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 (Sth Cir.

1974)).

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this petition for habeas corpus should be DENIED AND

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because petitioner’s claims are MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all pending motions be DENIED as MOOT.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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

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 1st day of June, 2026.

AS VE

UNITED S'R¥TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-