Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 20, 2025

Tamay-Tamay v. Almodovar

Full caption

Tamay-Tamay, Norma Beatriz, Gonzalez Bermejo, Juan, Sherly Dey Aneira Gonzalez Tamay v. Judith Almodovar, Acting Director of the New York City Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

Judge
P. Castel
Docket
1:25-cv-07984
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ImmigrationHabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Tamay-Tamay v. Almodovar, Judge Castel held the habeas petition moot because petitioners were no longer in ICE custody and closed the case.

Who this affects

The petitioners’ habeas case was closed after the court determined that they were no longer in ICE custody and that the requested relief could not be granted.

What happened

Tamay-Tamay, Norma Beatriz, Gonzalez Bermejo, Juan, and Sherly Dey Aneira Gonzalez Tamay petitioned for relief while in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The court concluded that the petition was moot because the petitioners were no longer in ICE custody. It said it therefore could not grant the relief requested.

Judge P. Castel’s court ordered that the case be closed for the reasons stated in its October 17, 2025 order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Tamay-Tamay v. Almodovar · No. 1:25-cv-07984
Judge
P. Castel
Date
Oct. 20, 2025

Background

The petitioners filed a habeas petition challenging their custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The judgment states that the petitioners were no longer in ICE custody.

Ruling

The court concluded that the habeas petition was moot. A moot case no longer presents a dispute for which the court can provide the requested relief. Because the petitioners were no longer in ICE custody, the court stated that it could not grant the relief sought in the petition.

Disposition

For the reasons stated in the court’s October 17, 2025 order, the court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the case be closed. The judgment does not state that the petition was dismissed with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.