Rennau

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DICQUANE RICHARD RENNAU, : Civil No. 1:26-CV-00125

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. :

:

ANGELA HOOVER, et al., :

:

Respondents. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Dicquane Richard Rennau (“Rennau”). (Doc. 1.)

Because the court finds that Rennau’s petition is moot, the petition will be

dismissed and the pending motions will be denied as moot.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rennau is a twenty-five-year-old native and citizen of Jamaica. (Doc. 1, p.

3.)1 Rennau asserts that he entered the United States at age three and has

continuously resided in the United States since that time. (Id.) In July 2013,

Rennau applied for and was subsequently granted Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrivals (“DACA”) status, which was valid through October 16, 2015. (Doc. 12-2,

p. 5.) Rennau applied for renewal of his DACA status in July 2015, which was

granted through October 16, 2017. (Id.) In October 2017, Rennau filed another

1 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.

DACA renewal application, which was again granted through November 17, 2019.

(Id.) On November 17, 2019, Rennau’s DACA status expired. (Id.)

In October 2020, Rennau again filed for renewal of DACA status, which

was granted and valid through November 19, 2022. (Id.) Rennau’s DACA status

expired for a second time on November 19, 2022. (Id.) On January 2, 2024,

Rennau filed another application for DACA status. (Id.) According to the records

provided to the court, that application remains pending. (Id.)

In 2015, Rennau applied for and was granted advance parole to allow him to

travel internationally from January 10, 2016, through April 10, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 3;

Doc. 12-6.) The parties agree that after Rennau’s international travel and upon re-

entering the United States in February 2016, Rennau was classified as an “arriving

alien.” (Doc. 1, p. 3; Doc. 12, p. 5.)

On January 12, 2024, Rennau was arrested and charged by the Pennsylvania

State Police with two counts of theft, possessing knowingly counterfeit or altered

access devices, and possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use.

(Doc. 12-2, pp. 7–12.) On January 25, 2024, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) encountered Rennau pursuant to the Criminal Alien Program

in the Union County Jail in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 4.) On October 8,

2024, Rennau was sentenced to 269 days to 23 months imprisonment with credit

for time served and one year probation for identity theft in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.

§ 4120(A). (Id. at 4, 13–14.) Rennau was then released from Union County Prison

into ICE custody. (Id. at 15.)

Rennau was served with a notice to appear on October 9, 2024, charging him

with a violation of Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (“INA”). (Doc. 12-3, pp. 3–6.) The same day, a notice of custody

determination was served on Rennau notifying him that he would be detained

pending a final administrative determination in his case. (Doc. 12-3, p. 8.) Rennau

requested that an immigration judge review the custody determination. (Id.) On

October 21, 2024, and December 9, 2025, immigration judges denied Rennau’s

requests for a change in custody status stating the court lacked jurisdiction. (Doc.

1-1, pp. 7–10.)

On June 9, 2025, an immigration judge found Rennau removable under

Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA and denied his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, withholding of removal under the Convention Against

Torture, and cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents. (Doc. 12-4.)

Rennau was ordered removed to Jamaica. (Id.) Rennau appealed this decision and

on January 9, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed his

appeal. (Doc. 12-5.) The BIA held:

An alien is statutorily precluded from demonstrating good moral

character if, during the period for which good moral character must be

proven, the alien “has been confined, as a result of conviction, to a penal

institution for an aggregate period of one hundred and eighty days or

more….” See section 101 (f)(7) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7).

While he concedes that he was held in pretrial detention for more than

180 days, the respondent argues that period this could not be counted

as the confinement since it was not “as a result of conviction” because

he had been detained for 269 days before he was convicted of one count

of identity theft on October 8, 2024. (Exh. 2; Resp. Br. at 3, 10-13).

For this conviction he was sentenced to 269 days to 23 months of

incarceration, with credit for time served followed by one year of

consecutive probation (Exh. 2; Resp. Br. at 3).

Contrary to the respondent’s arguments otherwise, pre-conviction

confinement which is later credited toward a convicted alien’s sentence

is counted in assessing whether the alien has been imprisoned for 180

days within the meaning of INA § 101(f)(7). Aguilar v. Attorney

General United States, 107 F.4th 164 (3d Cir. 2024); see also Matter of

Valdovinos, 18 I&N Dec. 343 (BIA 1982). Thus where, as here, an

alien has been convicted for immigration purposes and has been

confined for 180 days or more, his confinement is “as a result of” the

conviction. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (prior

sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release is part of

penalty for original offense). Here, the respondent was confined for

well-over 180 days due to his 2024 criminal conviction. As such, he

was statutorily precluded from demonstrating good moral character and

the Immigration Judge properly pretermitted his cancellation

application.

(Id. at 4–5.) On January 27, 2026, Rennau filed a petition for review with the

Third Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 12, pp. 7–8.) The Third Circuit temporarily

stayed Rennau’s removal pending a decision on his motion for stay of removal.

(Id.) On May 28, 2026, the Third Circuit issued an order vacating its temporary

administrative stay of removal, and denying Rennau’s motion for stay of removal

because he failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his petition for

review. Rennau v. Att’y Gen. U.S., No. 26-1173, Doc. 12 (3d Cir. May 28, 2026).

While the merits of his petition is still pending before the Third Circuit, Rennau

was removed to Jamaica on June 11, 2026. (Doc. 20, p. 2–3.)

On January 20, 2026, Rennau filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

requesting release from detention against Angela Hoover, Warden of Clinton

County Correctional Facility; David O’Neil, Acting Director, Philadelphia Field

Office Director of ICE; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States (collectively,

“Respondents”).2 (Doc. 1.) The same day, Rennau filed a motion for temporary

restraining order (“TRO”) and motion to expedite proceedings. (Docs. 2, 3.)

Respondents filed a brief in opposition to the motion for TRO and motion to

expedite, as well as a response to the habeas petition. (Docs. 9, 12.) Rennau

timely filed a traverse on March 5, 2026, but did not file reply briefs in support of

his motions. (Doc. 15.) Thus, the petition, motion for TRO, and motion to

expedite are ripe for review.3

2 Respondents, in a footnote, submit that the only proper respondent is Angela Hoover, the

Warden of Clinton County Correctional Facility. (Doc. 12, p. 1 n.1.) In this case, consistent

with Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004), Petitioner has named the Warden as a

respondent. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447 (“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge

his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as

respondent.”) The court will not address an argument requesting dismissal of other Respondents

when only raised in a footnote.

3 Rennau filed several other motions in this case, which will be denied as moot. (Docs. 16, 17,

19.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW AND JURISDICTION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a district court may consider a writ of

habeas corpus when an immigration detainee is “in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Claims related to an

immigration detainee’s request for release from confinement must be brought as a

habeas petition as these “claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus.”

Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025) (quoting Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 167

(2022)). Jurisdiction for “core habeas petitions . . . lies in only one district: the

district of confinement.” Id. (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443

(2004)) (internal quotations omitted). At the time Rennau filed his petition, he was

detained at Clinton County Correctional Facility, which is within the Middle

District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b).

DISCUSSION

In response to the petition, Respondents argue that Rennau’s petition is now

moot because he is no longer in ICE custody, and thus, there is no relief that this

court can provide. (Doc. 20, p. 3.)

Generally, a petition for habeas corpus becomes moot when the petitioner is

released from custody before the petition has been addressed on the merits. DeFoy

v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 441 (2005) (citing Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624,

631 (1982)). This is so because for a case or controversy to exist, 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.” Id. (quoting

Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). Here, even if Rennau was

successful on the merits of his petition, there is no action to be redressed by this

court since Rennau’s order of removal was executed and he is no longer detained

in the United States. For this reason, Rennau’s petition is moot and will be

dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the court will dismiss Rennau’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, and deny his pending motions, Docs. 2,

3, 16, 17, & 19, as moot. An order follows.

s/Jennifer P. Wilson

JENNIFER P. WILSON

United States District Judge

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: June 16, 2026