Iana Ivachenko v. Kristi Noem, et al

W.D. Louisiana

Iana Ivachenko v. Kristi Noem, et al

DecidedDecember 10, 2025

Docket6:25-cv-01081

StatusUnknown

This text of Iana Ivachenko v. Kristi Noem, et al (Iana Ivachenko v. Kristi Noem, et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Iana Ivachenko v. Kristi Noem, et al, (W.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

IANA IVANCHENKO CASE NO. 6:25-CV-1081 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

KRISTI NOEM, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot. Rec. Doc. 11. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. Petitioner, Iana Ivanchenko, a former ICE detainee, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 28, 2025, seeking release from custody. Rec. Doc. No. 1. On November 12, 2025, Petitioner was released from ICE custody. See doc. 11, p. 1. The release from custody renders Ivanchenko’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus moot, as petitioner has demanded only her immediate release through these proceedings. See Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 717 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[A] moot case presents no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issues it presents.”). Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant filed by the Government [rec. doc. 11], be GRANTED, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice and that this proceeding be terminated. Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen days from service of this report and recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with of a copy of any objections or responses to the district judge at the time of filing. Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in the report and recommendation within fourteen days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir.1996). THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers at Lafayette, Louisiana, December 10, 2025.

CAROL B. WHITEHURST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

IANA IVANCHENKO CASE NO. 6:25-CV-1081 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

KRISTI NOEM, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot. Rec. Doc. 11. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. Petitioner, Iana Ivanchenko, a former ICE detainee, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 28, 2025, seeking release from custody. Rec. Doc. No. 1. On November 12, 2025, Petitioner was released from ICE custody. See doc. 11, p. 1. The release from custody renders Ivanchenko’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus moot, as petitioner has demanded only her immediate release through these proceedings. See Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 717 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[A] moot case presents no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issues it presents.”). Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant filed by the Government [rec. doc. 11], be GRANTED, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice and that this proceeding be terminated. Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen days from service of this report and recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with of a copy of any objections or responses to the district judge at the time of filing. Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in the report and recommendation within fourteen days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir.1996). THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers at Lafayette, Louisiana, December 10, 2025.

CAROL B. WHITEHURST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Iana Ivachenko v. Kristi Noem, et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iana-ivachenko-v-kristi-noem-et-al-lawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack