1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, §

A#072568589, §

§

 Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-02529-G (BT)

§

ICE-DHS, et al., §

§

Respondents. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Mohammed Siddiqui filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his period of detention at the Prairieland 

Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, pending his removal from the United 

States. But Siddiqui was removed from the United States on December 20, 

2022, and he is no longer in federal custody. See Resp. Ex. A (ECF No. 16). 

Therefore, the Court should DISMISS the petition as moot. 

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). Here, Siddiqui 

challenged his detention in the custody of the U.S. Immigrations and 

Custom Enforcement agency (ICE) prior to his removal from the United 

Case 3:22-cv-02529-G-BT Document 17 Filed 01/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 72
2

States. However, Siddiqui has been removed from the country and is no 

longer in ICE custody. Therefore, the Court cannot grant him the relief he 

seeks. The Court should dismiss his petition as moot. See Bailey v. 

Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (dismissing a § 

2241 petition as moot after the petitioner’s release where “the thrust of [the] 

petition [was] to be released from confinement”); see also United States v. 

Boston, 419 F. App’x 505, 506 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“If the only relief 

sought by [a petitioner] cannot be granted, the case is moot.”).

SO RECOMMENDED. 

Signed January 5, 2023. 

____________________________

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-02529-G-BT Document 17 Filed 01/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 73