Abdirahman D. A. v. DHS-ICE Chief Counsel
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-03172
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Abdirahman D. A. v. DHS-ICE Chief Counsel, Judge Tostrud denied the requests as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
The order affected Abdirahman D. A.’s custody-re-determination motion and habeas petition, which were both denied as moot, and ended his action through dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Abdirahman D. A. v. DHS-ICE Chief Counsel, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Abdirahman D. A.’s request to have his custody reconsidered and his petition challenging his detention.
No party objected to the recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error. The court accepted the recommendation, denied both the custody-reconsideration motion and the habeas petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Eric Tostrud entered the order on October 16, 2020. The opinion does not explain why the requests had become moot.
The detailed version
- Abdirahman D. A. v. DHS-ICE Chief Counsel · No. 0:19-cv-03172
- Eric Tostrud
- Oct. 16, 2020
Background
Abdirahman D. A. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for custody re-determination. The opinion identifies the respondents as DHS-ICE Chief Counsel, the Attorney General, and the Sherburne County Sheriff.
United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez issued a Report and Recommendation on October 1, 2020. No party objected. Under the court’s stated procedure, Judge Tostrud therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Abdirahman D. A.’s Motion for Custody Re-Determination as moot and denied his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot.
The court also dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling, but the opinion does not explain the circumstances that made the requests moot or provide further details about the jurisdictional issue.
Effect of the Order
The order ended this action without the court deciding the underlying custody or habeas issues. The opinion states that judgment should be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.