Oumar K. v. United States of America
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03939
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Oumar K. v. United States, Judge Brisbois recommended denying Oumar K.’s detention challenge without prejudice as moot after his removal.
Oumar K., whose petition challenging his immigration detention was recommended for denial without prejudice as moot after his removal; the recommendation did not decide whether his detention or supervised-release revocation was lawful.
What happened
Oumar K. v. United States of America concerns Oumar K.’s challenge to his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while he awaited removal to the Republic of the Congo. He sought release and argued that his supervised release was improperly revoked and that his continued detention violated due process.
Oumar K. was removed to the Republic of the Congo while the case was pending. Because he was no longer in immigration custody, the court could not order his release, so it found that the case was moot. The court also found that no exception to the mootness rule applied.
Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the petition be denied without prejudice as moot and did not decide the underlying detention claims. The recommendation is not a final district-court order, and the opinion says the parties may file written objections within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Oumar K. v. United States of America · No. 0:25-cv-03939
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 22, 2026
Background
Oumar K. filed a petition seeking release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody while awaiting removal to the Republic of the Congo. He challenged the revocation of his supervised release and argued that his continued detention violated his constitutional right to due process. He did not challenge the underlying removal order or argue that he was not removable.
Oumar K. filed the petition on October 14, 2025. He was removed from the United States to the Republic of the Congo on November 20, 2025, while the petition was pending.
Mootness
The court first considered whether the petition remained a live case or controversy after the removal. A case becomes moot when an event makes it impossible for the court to provide meaningful relief. Because Oumar K. was no longer in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, the court could not order his release from that custody.
The court considered recognized exceptions to mootness, including continuing injuries, issues likely to repeat while escaping review, voluntary cessation of challenged conduct, and certified class actions. It found that none applied. In particular, the court concluded that effectuating the final removal order left no continuing injury relevant to the petition, that the same circumstances were unlikely to recur, that there was no indication the removal was intended to avoid judicial review, and that the case was not a certified class action.
Recommendation and Procedure
Because the petition was moot, the court did not reach the merits of Oumar K.’s arguments about the revocation of supervised release or the legality of his detention. It recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied without prejudice as moot.
The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. It states that the recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommended disposition.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.