The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
DANIELA ARITA-BUESO CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-00990 SEC P
VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS
WARDEN RICHWOOD MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL B.
CORRECTIONAL CENTER ET AL WHITEHURST
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 Daniela Arita Bueso on March 30, 2026. [Doc. 1]. At the time of filing,
Petitioner 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 15, 2026, the Government filed a Notice of Removal stating that while the matter
was pending, Petitioner was removed to Honduras by flight on or about June 10, 2026. [Docs. 12,
12-2]. Therefore, her 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. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by
this recommendation have fourteen (14) 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.
Signed in chambers on June 16, 2026.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-2-