Kimberly Dimas Branchi v. Brian Acuna, et al

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: December 27, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-01943
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

KIMBERLY DIMAS BRANCHI CASE NO. 6:25-CV-1943 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

BRIAN ACUNA, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS HABEAS PETITION AS MOOT filed by Petitioner, Kimberly Dimas Branchi. Rec. Doc. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the motion be GRANTED. Petitioner, a former ICE detainee, filed a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on December 4, 2025, seeking release from custody. Rec. Doc. No. 1. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, Petitioner was released from ICE custody. See Rec. Doc. 7 at 1. The release from custody renders the habeas petition moot, as petitioner had 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 PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS HABEAS PETITION AS MOOT filed by the Petitioner Kimberly Dimas Branchi (Rec. Doc. 7) be GRANTED the VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Rec. Doc. 1) 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. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers at Lafayette, Louisiana, December 27, 2025.

David J. Ayo United States Magistrate Judge