RENE MOTAMORO MORA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:26-cv-25147-GAYLES

RENE MOTAMORO MORA,

Petitioner,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

Respondents. ______________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Respondents’ Return to Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Response”) [ECF No. 5]. In the Response, Respondents alert the Court that Petitioner was released from custody on August 3, 2026. See id. at 1. “Because mootness is jurisdictional,” courts “are required to resolve any question implicating the doctrine before” they “assume jurisdiction over” a case. See Djadju v. Vega, 32 F.4th 1102, 1106 (11th Cir. 2022). “A cause of action becomes moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “In considering mootness,” courts “look at the events at the present time, not at the time the” case “was filed.” See id. “As a general rule, a habeas petition presents a live case or controversy only when a petitioner is in custody.” Salmeron-Salmeron v. Spivey, 926 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2019). “So where a habeas petitioner has been released from detention,” and “he has not raised a challenge to a collateral consequence,” the Eleventh Circuit has held that the habeas petitioner’s case became moot. See Djadju, 32 F.4th at 1107 (quotation marks omitted). In Djadju, the Eleventh Circuit instructed that the “fundamental question” in assessing mootness “is whether events have occurred that deprive” the court “of the ability to give” the party “meaningful relief.” See id. As part of the same decision, the Court answered that question in circumstances similar to those involved in this case: where a habeas petitioner “asked the federal courts for only one form of relief’ — “to be immediately released from custody as a result of his ongoing prolonged detention” — and “already has been released from custody, his prayer for relief has been satisfied,” and the court is “unable to provide him with any remedy pursuant to § 2241.” See id. (footnote and quotation marks omitted). For that reason, the Court found that Djadju was “a classic case of mootness.” See id. at 1108. The same is true here. Petitioner was released from immigration detention on August 3, see [ECF No. 5 at 1], so the court can no longer provide him with relief under § 2241. See Djadju, 32 F.4th at 1107. As a result, this case has become moot. See id. at 1106-07. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED as MOOT, and this case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of August, 2026.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Noticing 2241/Bivens US Attorney Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov Noticing INS Attorney Email: usafls-immigration@usdo].gov