Opinion

Medina-Caballero

Court
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Filed
Jul 29, 2026
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONROE DIVISION

ANA MEDINA-CABALLERO CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-01552 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

ELEAZAR GARCIA ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Government’s MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDINGS FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION [Doc. 4]1 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

[Doc. 1] by Petitioner Ana Meina-Caballero (“Medina-Caballero”). At the time of filing the

Petition, Medina-Caballero was a detainee in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Custom

Enforcement (“ICE”) at Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, Louisiana. [Doc. 1].

Because Medina-Caballero has been released, the Motion to Dismiss should be

GRANTED and the Petition DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. Background

Medina-Caballero is a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the United States

in June of 2016. [Doc. 1, at ¶ 12]. She was ordered removed on April 15, 2024, and the case

appeal was dismissed on May 6, 2026.2 According to the Declaration of Charles Ward,

Assistant Field Officer of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

On or about May 18, 2026, the Petitioner removed by an ICE

charter flight from AEX with thefinal destination of Ramon

Villeda Morales International Airport (MHLM).

[Doc. 4-1, at ¶ 4]

1 This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation under 28

U.S.C. § 636, and the standing orders of the Court.

2 https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation

II. Law and Analysis

“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court

jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445

U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v.

McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). The case-or-controversy requirement “subsists

through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Spencer v. Kemna,

523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citations omitted). The parties must continue to have a “personal stake

in the outcome” of the lawsuit. Id. Therefore, throughout the litigation, 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.

Medina-Caballero has received the relief requested. Because she is not in custody,

the § 2241 Petition is moot. See Dien Thanh Ngo v. Johnson, 3:19-CV-976, 2019 WL 3468909

(N.D. Tex. July 17, 2019) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL

3459817 (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2019). 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)).

III. Conclusion

Because Medina-Caballero has been released, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 4] be GRANTED and that the Petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file written

objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court

grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may also

respond to another party’s objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of

service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a

response to objections.

No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good

cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation

will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District

Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”

Lafayette, Louisiana, this 29 day of July, 2026.

David J. Ayo

United States Magistrate Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.