Ramirol Oachamin v. Stephen Rzdorfin, in his official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Field Office, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 6:25-cv-06502
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITESDT ATEDSI STRICCOTU RT WESTERDNI STRIOCFNT E WY ORK

RAMIROL OACHAMIN, Petitioner, ORDER -vs- 25-CV-65V02-MA STEPHEKNU RZDORFiEnRh ,io sf ficial capacaisDt iyr eocftB ourf fFaileoOl fdfi ce, eta.l ., Respondents. Petitiaonan leirse,un b jteoac fi tn aolr doefrr e movfiallep,dr soet hihsa beas petiutnidoe2nr8 U .S.§C2 .2 4a1l,l etghianRtge spondentsh idvsui peor loacteesds righutnsd etrh Ceo nstitutiona.l lPeeigtneitstae,ilr io tanh,eah rte h asb eeinn custuonddye 8r U .S.§C1 .2 31(afo)ra( p6p)r oxim2a3mt oenltywh ist hoau bto nd heariEnCgFN. o 1.. T herefohreae s,kt sh Ceo utroto rdheiris m mediraetleeo ars,e int hael ternaab toinvhdee ,a rwihnegr tehR ee spondbeenattrhs be u rdteopn r ove byc leaanrcd o nvinecviindget nhcahetic so ntinued idsne etceensttsiopao rrney v ent fligohrtd angteotr h ceo mmunIidtR.ye .s pondfielnettdhs e ainrs woenrN ovember 132,0 2E5C.F N o5.. OnD ecem4b,e2 r0 2R5e,s pondmeonvtetsdod ismtihsiassc tiaosmn o ootn, thger ountdhsaPt e titiison nole orn gientr h ceu stooftd hyUe n itSetda tbeesc ause hew asr emovfreodm t heU nitSetda toensD ecemb2e,2r 0 25E.C FN o.9 . Respondmeonttiwsoa'ns s uppobryta ed de clarfraotmiS opne cAisasli sUtnaintte d

StatAetst orMnaeryv Miunl lwehro,d eclatrheatdth Dee partmoefHn otm eland Security had advised him of Petitioner’s removal and release. ECF No. 9-2. On December 9, 2026, the Court received two hand-written letters from Petitioner, both dated November 26, 2025. ECF No. 11. Petitioner’s first letter notified the Court of Petitioner’s change of address from the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility to the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. ECF No. 11 at 1—2. The second letter notified the Court of Petitioner’s intention to “withdraw [his] habeas motion” in this case, and asked that this case be closed as soon as possible. Jd. at 3-7. Because Respondents had already filed their answer, Petitioner was not entitled to voluntary dismissal without Court order under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Therefore, the Court construes Petitioner’s letter as a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). Nevertheless, the Court need not address Petitioner’s motion because the Court agrees with Respondents that this action is moot. Where an alien detainee’s habeas petition under § 2241 seeks only a bond hearing or release from detention, that petition becomes moot once the alien has been removed from the United States. See Hassoun v. Searls, 976 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing Nieto-Ayala v. Holder, 529 F. App’x 55, 55 (2d Cir. 2013)). “This is because the relief sought in the ‘habeas proceeding—namely, release from continued detention in administrative custody— has been granted.” Mukonkole v. Garland, No. 20-CV-6599-FPG, 2023 WL 2501045, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2023) (quoting Arthur v. DHS/ICE, 713 F. Supp. 2d 179, 182 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)). Indeed, “[t]he hallmark of a moot case or controversy is that the relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer needed.” Martin-Trigona v.

Shiff, 702 F.2d 380, 386 (2d Cir. 1983). Thus, the Court finds that as a result of Petitioner’s release from Respondents’ custody, his application for a writ of habeas corpus is moot. See Ojo v. Wolf, No. 6:20- CV-06296 EAW, 2021 WL 795320, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2021). It is hereby ORDERED, that Respondents’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 9] is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that Petitioner’s application [ECF No. 1] is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: January BO | 2026 Rochester, New York

United States District Judge