Vladislav Tolmachev v. Alejandro Mayorkas et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00045
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

VLADISLAV TOLMACHEV #A249- CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-00045 375-590, SEC P Petitioner

VERSUS JUDGE DRELL

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS ET AL, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES Respondents

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition and Amended Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Vladislav Tolmachev (“Tolmachev”). ECF Nos. 5, 7, 9. At the time of filing, Tolmachev was an immigration detainee at River Correctional Center in Ferriday, Louisiana. He alleges that his continued detention is unlawful. Because Tolmachev has been released, the Petition should be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. I. Background Tolmachev is a native of Ukraine and citizen of Russia. ECF No. 15-1 at 1. His application for asylum was granted by the Immigration Judge, and Tolmachev was released from custody on July 30, 2025. II. Law and Analysis Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.” , 551 U.S. 587, 597 (2007) (quoting , 547

U.S. 332, 342 (2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted)). A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” , 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (quoting , 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). 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.” Because Tolmachev was released from detention, the § 2241 claim is moot. , 3:19-CV-976, 2019 WL 3468909 (N.D. Tex. 2019) (collecting cases), , 2019 WL 3459817 (N.D. Tex.

2019). If a controversy is moot, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. , 582 F.2d 14, 16 (5th Cir. 1978) (citing , 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971); , 499 F.2d 359, 363-364 (5th Cir. 1974)). Ill. Conclusion Because Tolmachev is no longer in custody, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition and Amended Petitions (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 9) 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 Monday, September 15, 2025. THE JOSEPH H.-L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE