Mendoza v. Warden Cimarron Correctional Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EDISON HERNAN FREIRE
MENDOZA,
)
)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-2259-PRW
)
WARDEN, Cimarron Correctional
Facility, et al.,
)
)
)
Respondents. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Edison Hernan Freire Mendoza, a noncitizen1 and Ecuadorian national
proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), Doc. 1,
challenging under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”). United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick referred this matter
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
Doc. 7. 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 August 25, 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
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-02259-PRW Document 14 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 6

2
continued detention in immigration custody without a bond hearing. 	Doc. 1 at 2, 6-7.2
When Petitioner filed his Petition, he was detained at Cimarron Correctional Facility in
Cushing, Oklahoma. 	Id. at 1. 	The Court set an expedited briefing schedule and ordered
Respondents to file an answer or other response. 	Doc. 9. 	Respondents timely filed a
response. Doc. 11.
On October 13, 2026, Respondents advised the Court that Petitioner was granted
release from ICE custody on a $1,500 bond on September 28, 2026. 	Doc. 13 at 1; Doc.
13-1 at 1 (Immigration Judge Order). 	Petitioner was released from ICE custody to an
address of residence in Arlington, Texas. Doc. 13-2 at 1.
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.
2 Citations to the Petition, Doc. 1, utilize the CM/ECF page numbers in the document’s
header.
Case 5:26-cv-02259-PRW Document 14 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 6

3
III. 	Analysis
Petitioner properly filed his Petition in this district because he was detained here at
the time of filing. 	Doc. 1 at 1; 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 the
petition was filed.” 	Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); see also Riley v. INS., 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).
Case 5:26-cv-02259-PRW Document 14 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Here, Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and has been released. 	Doc. 13 at 1;
Doc. 13-1. 	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 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 ICE detention and Respondents’ failure to
provide a bond hearing. 	See generally Doc. 1. 	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. The undersigned is not
Case 5:26-cv-02259-PRW Document 14 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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 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. INS., 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 Petition, Doc. 1, as moot. 	Adoption of this
recommendation also MOOTS Petitioner’s pending Emergency Motion to Expedite
Consideration of Petition, Doc. 4.
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.
Case 5:26-cv-02259-PRW Document 14 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 6

6
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate
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).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail this Report and Recommendation to the now-
current address for Petitioner, which was provided by Respondent in Doc. 13-2.
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-02259-PRW Document 14 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 6