Southern District of Florida • 1:26-cv-26634

#1

Sep 22, 2026

APPLICATION/PETITION (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Filing fee $ 5.00, filed by Brandon Alexis Perez Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)Case restricted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. (kma) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#2

Sep 22, 2026

Judge Assignment to Judge K. Michael Moore (kma) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#3

Sep 23, 2026

Clerks Notice of Receipt of Filing Fee received on 9/22/2026 in the amount of $ 5.00, receipt number FLS322978. (vt) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

Sep 23, 2026

Judge Assignment

#4

Sep 24, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Respondent's Response is due by 9/29/2026. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/24/2026. See attached document for full details. (srn) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#5

Sep 28, 2026

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Timothy J. Abraham on behalf of Brandon Alexis Perez Rodriguez. Attorney Timothy J. Abraham added to party Brandon Alexis Perez Rodriguez(pty:pla). (Abraham, Timothy) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#6

Sep 29, 2026

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 4 Order to Show Cause by Brandon Alexis Perez Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Detention History, # 2 Errata B - IJ Bond Order)(Abraham, Timothy) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

Sep 29, 2026

(Abraham, Timothy)

Sep 29, 2026

~Util - Activate Terminated Attorney

#7

Sep 30, 2026

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition" or "Pet."). (ECF No. 1). On September 24, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Respondent to file one consolidated memorandum of fact and law to show cause why the Petition should not be granted. See generally (ECF No. 4). Respondent thereafter filed a Response, indicating that on September 29, 2026, Petitioner received an individualized bond hearing, where an immigration judge granted bond. (ECF No. 6) at 1. Respondent thus contends that the Petition is moot. See id. "Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to 'cases' and 'controversies,' and the justiciability doctrine's main components include mootness." Djadju v. Vega, 32 F.4th 1102, 1106 (11th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up and citation omitted). "The doctrine of mootness derives directly from the case or controversy limitation because 'an action that is moot cannot be characterized as an active case or controversy.'" Soliman v. United States ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). A case is moot "when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief." Id. (citation omitted). "If events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed." Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001).Here, the Petition requested Respondent to show statutory and factual basis for detention and if subject to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), to receive a prompt individualized hearing. Pet. at 7. As Petitioner received a bond hearing and was granted bond, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case because it no longer presents a live controversy. See (ECF No. 6) at 2. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/30/2026. (srn) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

Sep 30, 2026

Order Dismissing/Closing Case or Party