Aidrus M. v. Sherburne County Jail
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-02086
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Aidrus M. v. Sherburne County Jail, Magistrate Judge Schultz recommended denying Aidrus M.’s petition without prejudice as moot and dismissing the case.
Aidrus M.; the recommendation addresses his challenge to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and says that resolving that challenge would not change his mandatory detention under § 1231(a).
What happened
In Aidrus M. v. Sherburne County Jail, Aidrus M. challenged his detention during ongoing removal proceedings, arguing that he was being wrongfully held under a federal detention law. The government later told the court that his removal order had become final.
The court said Aidrus M. was now subject to mandatory detention under a different federal law, regardless of whether his earlier detention was proper. Because deciding his earlier claim would not change his detention, the court found that the case had become moot and that it no longer had jurisdiction to decide the petition.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended denying the petition without prejudice as moot and dismissing the case. The recommendation is not a final order or judgment, and the notice allowed the parties to file written objections within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Aidrus M. v. Sherburne County Jail · No. 0:26-cv-02086
- John Tunheim
- July 7, 2026
Background
Aidrus M. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court review of allegedly unlawful detention. He contended that he was being wrongfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) while removal proceedings were ongoing.
The government later informed the court that Aidrus M.’s order of removal had become administratively final. According to the government, he was therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), regardless of whether he had previously been subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c). The court gave Aidrus M. an opportunity to respond, but the response deadline passed without a filing.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the case had become moot. It reasoned that even if Aidrus M. had been correct when he filed the petition that he was not then subject to mandatory detention, there was no reason to believe he was not subject to mandatory detention under § 1231(a) at the time of the recommendation. Deciding the claims concerning § 1226(c) would therefore accomplish nothing for him because he would remain subject to mandatory detention regardless of the result.
Because the case was moot, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition.
Recommendation and Procedure
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the petition be denied without prejudice as moot and that the matter be dismissed. These were separate recommendations: denial of the petition without prejudice as moot, and dismissal of the matter.
The document is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. Its notice states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.