The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
ADENKU AZANEW MALEFIYA DOCKET NO. 3:26-CV-01400
VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
ICE MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC
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 Adenku Azanew Malefiya on April 30, 2026. Doc. 1. At the time of filing,
Malefiya was detained at the Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, 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.
On June 10, 2026, the Government filed a Notice of Removal stating that while the matter
was pending, Petitioner was removed to the third country of Cameroon on or about April 28, 2026.
Doc. 11. 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 (5th Cir. 2003) (same). If a controversy is moot, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Carr v. Saucier, 582 F.2d 14, 16 (5th 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 (5th 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.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 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 15th day of June, 2026.
uf VK
UNITED S®¥TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-2-