Indra Bahadur Bhujel v. Geo Group Inc., Private Corporation Under Contract with the Department of Homeland Security; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00118
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHNSTOWN INDRA BAHADUR BHUJEL, ) ) Petitioner ) 3:25-CV-00118-RAL ) Vs. ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) Chief United States Magistrate Judge GEO GROUP INC., PRIVATE ) CORPORATION UNDER CONTRACT ) MEMORANDUM ORDER DISMISSING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI ) CORPUS AS MOOT NOEM, SECRETARY OF THE ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ECF NO. 1 HOMELAND SECURITY; AND ) PAMELA BONDI, ATTORNEY ) GENERAL OF THE UNITED ) STATES; ) ) Respondents )

Petitioner Indra Bahadur Bhujel was born in Nepal. ECF No. 1, §23. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Petitioner into custody on March 24, 2025. Id. 917. He filed the pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The petition challenges Petitioner's immigration detention at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center and requests a bond hearing. Id., generally. The case was transferred from the Middle District of Pennsylvania to this Court on April 16, 2025. ECF No. 3. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge in the proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On October 16, 2025, the Respondents filed a notice advising that Petitioner has been removed from the United States on or about April 10, 2025, and attaching a copy of the Warrant of Removal/Deportation (ICE Form [-205). ECF Nos. 8, 8-1. Based on the status report and finding no basis upon which to believe the Petitioner remains in the custody of the Respondents, the Court will dismiss the petition as moot. Article III limits federal judicial power to actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. A petitioner must, at every stage of litigation, demonstrate “an actual injury traceable to the [respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Abreu v. Superintendent Smithfield SCI, 971 F.3d 403, 406 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 2005)). A habeas petition generally is moot once the petitioner has been removed from the country because the Court no longer can order the relief requested in the petition. See Lindaastuty v. Attorney General, 186 Fed. Appx. 294, 298 (8d Cir. 2006) (unpublished); see also Hamilton v. Bromley, 862 F.3d 329, 3385 (8d Cir. 2017) (a case 1s moot when “developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a [petitioner’s] personal stake in the outcome” or prevent the court from granting the requested relief). Because Petitioner has been removed from the United States, as attested by counsel, and supported by the Warrant of Removal/Deportation, this Court cannot grant him the relief he seeks. The petition is therefore moot and will be dismissed as such.

ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Section 2241 petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed as moot. Because the instant petition is moot, and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See, e.g., Kimberly v. Giroux, 2014 WL 1268716, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2014). So ordered, this 23rd day of March, 2026.

eats RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE