1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSE LOPEZ, §

#028524148, §

 Petitioner, §

§ 

v. § No. 3:22-cv-02404-K (BT)

§

WARDEN, et al., §

Respondents. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jose Lopez filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention by the United States 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Prairieland Detention 

Center in Alvarado, Texas, while awaiting his removal from the United 

States. See Pet. (ECF No. 3.) The District Court referred the matter to the 

United States magistrate judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b) and a standing order of reference. For the following reasons, the 

Court should DISMISS the petition as moot. 

I.

Lopez is a native and citizen of Nicaragua. See Pet. 1, 2, 6 (ECF No. 3); 

Resp. 1 (ECF No. 6). By his petition, he challenges his continued detention 

by ICE pursuant to a final order of removal, and he seeks release from ICE 

custody. Pet. 1 (ECF No. 3); Resp. 1 (ECF No. 6). However, Lopez was 

Case 3:22-cv-02404-K-BT Document 7 Filed 12/21/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 22
2

removed from the United States on December 15, 2022. Resp. 1 (ECF No. 6) 

(citing Ex. A). 

II. 

A case becomes moot “if an event occurs during the pendency of the 

action that makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief 

whatever’ to a prevailing party.” Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 

U. S. 9, 12 (1992) (citing Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)); United 

States v. Jackson, 771 F. 3d 900, 903 (5th Cir. 2014). By his petition here, 

Lopez challenges his continued detention by ICE. But Lopez was removed 

from the United States on December 15, and he is in no longer in ICE 

custody. His removal rendered his petition moot. For this reason, the Court 

should dismiss his petition as moot. See Morales-Morales v. Barr, 933 F.3d 

456, 462 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Because Morales-Morales is no longer detained 

and has already been deported, her challenge to her detention is moot.”) 

(citing Chay v. Holder, 470 F. App'x 406, 407 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) 

(“Even if the district court retained subject matter jurisdiction over Chay’s § 

2241 petition to the extent that it challenged the continued lawfulness of 

Chay's post-removal-order detention, and not an order of removal, any such 

challenge is now moot because Chay has been removed from the United 

States.”) (internal citation omitted)); see also Hamisy v. Barr, 2021 WL 

863209, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2021) (finding Petitioner’s removal from 

the United States rendered his challenge to detention moot) (citing and 

Case 3:22-cv-02404-K-BT Document 7 Filed 12/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 23
3

quoting Morales-Morales, 933 F.3d at 462), rec. adopted 2021 WL 859136 

(N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2021); Jubril v. DHS/ICE, 2021 WL 955249, at *2 (N.D. 

Tex. Feb. 11, 2021) (same) (citing and quoting Morales-Morales, 933 F.3d 

at 462), rec. adopted 2021 WL 951018 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2021). 

III. 

The Court should DISMISS Lopez’s petition as moot. 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed December 21, 2022.

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will 

bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F. 3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996)

Case 3:22-cv-02404-K-BT Document 7 Filed 12/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 24