Medero-Gonzales v. Brackett et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Geraldo A. Medero-Gonzales
v. 	Civil No. 17-cv-340-JL
Opinion No. 2017 DNH 199
Capt. Brian Brackett, Acting Superintendent,
Strafford County Department of Corrections;
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Timothy Stevens, SDDO/ERO; and Brian Geary,
ICE Deportation Officer
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Geraldo A. Medero-Gonzales has filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
concerning his detention by the United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) that began on July 11, 2017 and
ended on August 14, 2017. 	The federal respondents have moved to
dismiss the petition based on Medero-Gonzales’s release from ICE
detention on August 14. 	See Doc. No. 5. 	Petitioner did not
file a response to that motion to dismiss.
This court’s September 6, 2017 Order ordered Medero-
Gonzales to show cause by September 18, 2017 why the petition
should not be dismissed, and why the court should not cancel the
September 25, 2017 hearing on the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5)
and Medero-Gonzales’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc.
No. 2). 	Medero-Gonzales has not responded to that September 6
Case 1:17-cv-00340-JL Document 10 Filed 09/21/17 Page 1 of 2

2
Order. 	The court has continued the hearing.
The district judge should grant the motion to dismiss (Doc.
No. 5) and close the case because Medero-Gonzales has been
released from ICE custody, and the record does not reflect that
there are any collateral consequences associated with his
July/August 2017 detention. 	The district judge should also deny
as moot Medero-Gonzales’s motion for a preliminary injunction
(Doc. No. 2) and his objection (Doc. No. 7) to the August 2,
2017 Order (Doc. No. 3), which the court previously construed to
be a motion to reconsider that Order.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
September 21, 2017
cc: 	Geraldo A. Medero-Gonzales, pro se
Thomas P. Velardi, Esq.
Terry L. Ollila, Esq.
Case 1:17-cv-00340-JL Document 10 Filed 09/21/17 Page 2 of 2