Iryna Pylypiv v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: May 21, 2026
• Docket: 6:26-cv-00717
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

IRYNA PYLYPIV #A232-244-571, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 6:26-CV-00717 Petitioner SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

U S IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES ENFORCEMENT ET AL, Respondents

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) filed by Petitioner Iryna Pylypiv (“Pylypiv”). At the time of filng, Pylypiv was an immigration detainee at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana. Pylypiv seeks release from detention. Because Pylypiv is no longer detained, the Petition should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. I. Petitioner Pylypiv is a citizen of Ukraine who was ordered removed on May 29, 2025, and did not appeal. ECF No. 13-1 at 2. Pylypiv alleges that removal is not likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, Pylypiv was deported on April 29, 2026. ECF No. 17 at 1. II. Law and Analysis “Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal- court jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” ,

445 U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” . at 396 (quoting , 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). If a controversy becomes moot, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. , 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The case-or-controversy requirement “subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” , 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)

(citations omitted). The parties must continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit. . Therefore, throughout the litigation, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Additionally, an alien who has been finally removed from United States is not “in custody,” as required for a court to have the power to grant a writ of habeas corpus.

, 667 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); , 3:19-CV-976, 2019 WL 3468909 (N.D. Tex. 2019) (collecting cases), , 2019 WL 3459817 (N.D. Tex. 2019); 28 U.S.C. § 2241. III. Conclusion Because Pylypiv was deported, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections. No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.” SIGNED on Thursday, May 21, 2026. SHEE JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE