Bondarenko v. Grant et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROMAN BONDARENKO, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-1484-D
)
CHRIS GANTT, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Roman Bondarenko, a noncitizen1 and Russian national proceeding with
counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), Doc. 1, and Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”), Doc. 11, challenging under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).
United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti referred this matter to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). 	Doc. 5. 	Because
Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and this Court can grant no relief to him, the
undersigned recommends the Court dismiss the Petition as moot.
I. 	Background
On June 22, 2026, Petitioner filed his Petition alleging, among other things, that ICE
violated federal immigration law and his rights to due process with his arrest and continued
detention in immigration custody without a bond hearing. 	Doc. 1 at 11-16. 	When
1 Unless quoting, this Report and Recommendation “uses the term ‘noncitizen’ as
equivalent to the statutory term ‘alien.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578 n.2 (2020)
(citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)).
Case 5:26-cv-01484-D Document 24 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Petitioner filed his Petition, he was detained at Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing,
Oklahoma. Id. at 2. He later filed an Amended Petition that raised the same claims, along
with a new claim alleging failure to provide medical care. Doc. 11 at 12-18.
On August 25, 2026, Petitioner’s counsel advised the Court that Petitioner was
released from ICE custody on August 17, 2026. Doc. 23 at 1. Because he was “no longer
detained in ICE custody,” counsel for Petitioner advised “the parties respectfully submit
that no further action is needed in this proceeding.” Id.
II. 	Standard of Review
To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show he is “in custody in violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
“Challenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly through habeas.”
Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001)).
“Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is
a 	constitutional 	prerequisite 	to 	federal 	court 	jurisdiction.” 	McClendon 	v. 	City 	of
Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996). 	“Because mootness is a matter of
jurisdiction, a court may raise the issue sua sponte.” Id.
III. 	Analysis
Petitioner properly filed his Petition in this district because he was detained here at
the time of filing. Doc. 1 at 2; Doc. 11 at 2; see also Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166
(10th Cir. 1996) (noting a § 2241 petition “must be filed in the district where the prisoner
is confined”). Petitioner satisfied the “in custody” requirement under § 2241 “at the time
Case 5:26-cv-01484-D Document 24 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 6

3
the petition was filed.” 	Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); see also Riley v. I.N.S.,
310 F.3d 1253, 1256 (10th Cir. 2002) (noting that petitioner met the “in custody”
requirement of § 2241 because he was “in custody at the time of filing” (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241)). 	“The more substantial question, however, is whether petitioner’s subsequent
release caused the petition to be moot because it no longer presented a case or controversy
under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to ‘cases’ and
‘controversies.’” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 160 (2016) (quoting U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2). 	“In order to invoke federal-court jurisdiction, a [petitioner] must
demonstrate that he possesses a legally cognizable interest, or personal stake, in the
outcome of the action.” 	Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71 (2013)
(citation modified). “If an intervening circumstance deprives the [petitioner] of a personal
stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, at any point during litigation, the action can no longer
proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” Id. at 72 (citation modified). “A case becomes
moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the
prevailing party.” 	Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (citation
modified).
Here, Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and has been released. 	Doc. 23 at 1.
Though jurisdiction attached in this district when Petitioner filed his Petition, his
subsequent release from ICE custody may render his Petition moot. The Petition does not
become moot, however, merely because Petitioner has been released from ICE custody. If
a petitioner “has been released from custody while his or her habeas petition is pending, a
Case 5:26-cv-01484-D Document 24 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 6

4
court’s jurisdiction depends upon the existence of ‘collateral consequences . . . adequate to
meet Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement.’” 	King v. Ciolli, No. 23-1201, 2024 WL
1179908, at *2 (10th Cir. Mar. 19, 2024) (quoting Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14). To overcome
mootness after release from custody, a petitioner must show “some concrete and continuing
injury” “if the suit is to be maintained.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.
Petitioner challenges in his Petition his detention in ICE custody and Respondents’
failure to provide a bond hearing. See generally Doc. 11. In similar circumstances, courts
have concluded a petitioner’s release from immigration custody mooted his habeas
challenge to the legality of his detention, where the only possible “continuing injury” or
collateral consequence “stems from his removal order, not his detention.” 	Ferry v.
Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006). 	Further, any determination now as to
whether Petitioner’s detention violated his due process rights would amount to an advisory
opinion that this Court cannot issue. Id. (declining “to issue an advisory opinion regarding
[petitioner’s] entitlement to a bond hearing because a declaratory judgment on that question
would have no meaningful effect on the [immigration officials’] future conduct” with him).
Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, and the relief he requests is no longer
available and cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. 	Petitioner states as
much. 	Doc. 23 at 1 (“Petitioner is therefore no longer detained in ICE custody.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that no further action is needed in this
proceeding.”). 	The 	undersigned 	is 	not 	aware 	from 	the 	record 	of 	any 	collateral
consequences to Petitioner that would constitute an exception to the mootness doctrine.
No concrete or continuing injury to Petitioner appears to remain after his release from ICE
Case 5:26-cv-01484-D Document 24 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 6

5
custody. As such, Petitioner’s habeas challenge to his detention no longer presents a case
or controversy subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, and the Petition should be dismissed as
moot. 	See, e.g., Suarez-Tejeda v. United States, 85 F. App’x 711, 716 (10th Cir. 2004)
(ruling an immigration detainee’s habeas challenge to detention was moot when he was
released on conditions and “effectively received the relief he has requested”); Sule v. I.N.S.,
189 F.3d 478, 1999 WL 668716, at *1 (10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision)
(concluding 	an 	immigration 	detainee’s 	release 	from 	immigration 	custody 	through
deportation “mooted his challenge to the legality of his detention”); see also Mounivong v.
Bondi, 	No. 	CIV-25-1483-PRW, 	2025 	WL 	3907008 	(W.D. 	Okla. 	Dec. 	22, 	2025)
(recommending dismissal of habeas petition as moot when petitioner was removed to home
country and no longer in ICE custody) (R&R), adopted, 2026 WL 69364 (W.D. Okla. Jan.
8, 2026).
IV. 	Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
Petitioner’s release from ICE custody renders his Petition moot, as there is no longer
an actual case or controversy for the Court to decide. 	The undersigned therefore
recommends that the Court DISMISS the Amended Petition, Doc. 11, and Petition, Doc.
1, as moot. 	Adoption of this recommendation also MOOTS Petitioner’s pending
Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Doc.
12, and Motion to Expedite Ruling on Pending Petition and Emergency Motion, Doc. 20.
The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed not later than October 28, 2026. See id.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate
Case 5:26-cv-01484-D Document 24 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 6

6
review of the factual and legal issues addressed in this Report and Recommendation. See
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-01484-D Document 24 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 6