Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rikly Rodriguez Naranjo, a citizen of Cuba who claims he entered the United States in February 1999, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. The court had previously issued an order setting a briefing schedule that directed the respondent to indicate whether the case was substantively distinguishable from several cited prior orders, and to state whether it opposed the court ruling directly on the merits if it found the petitioner entitled to relief.
The respondent filed a response in opposition to the habeas petition, asserting that the petitioner's most recent detention was pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because an immigration judge ordered the petitioner removed in June 2026. According to the respondent, the petitioner was detained by ICE officials in 2025 after being convicted of certain crimes and was ordered removed on or about June 12, 2026. The petitioner reserved his right to appeal that removal order but did not pursue an appeal, resulting in the removal order becoming administratively final.
The Court’s Holding
The court took judicial notice, based on the online immigration detainee locator, that it appeared possible the petitioner was no longer in immigration custody, citing Woods v. Merkelbach for the propriety of taking judicial notice of government documents obtained from a public website. The court identified two possibilities: given the June 2026 removal order, the petitioner may have been removed from the United States; alternatively, ICE may have simply removed the petitioner from the online detainee locator system after the removal order issued.
Because the petitioner's current custody status was uncertain, the court determined it needed a detailed update before ruling on the underlying habeas petition. It granted the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the respondent to file a supplemental brief, with all corresponding documents associated with the petitioner's custody status, within three business days of the order. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the supplemental brief and corresponding documents within seven days thereafter. The court did not rule on the merits of the habeas petition or on the motion for appointment of counsel.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing him to continue litigating his habeas petition without prepayment of fees.
- Before ruling on the merits of the habeas petition, the court ordered the respondent to provide a detailed update on the petitioner's current immigration detention status along with any corresponding documentation reflecting the petitioner's removal from the United States.
- The court took judicial notice of the online immigration detainee locator, which suggested the petitioner might no longer be in immigration custody, but acknowledged the alternative possibility that ICE had simply removed him from the locator system.
- The respondent was given three business days to file the supplemental brief and documents, and the petitioner was given seven days thereafter to file a reply.
- The court did not rule on the merits of the habeas petition or on the petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel in this order.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates a court's approach to a potentially moot habeas petition in the immigration detention context. Rather than ruling on the merits or dismissing the petition outright, the court sought verified, up-to-date information about the petitioner's custody status, recognizing that the online detainee locator alone was not conclusive evidence of removal. The order reflects the principle that a habeas petition challenging detention may become moot if the petitioner is no longer in custody, but that the court requires reliable confirmation before reaching that conclusion.
The order also demonstrates the court's willingness to take judicial notice of publicly available government information while remaining cautious about drawing definitive conclusions from such sources. By ordering supplemental briefing on an expedited timeline, the court balanced the need for accurate factual information with the urgency inherent in habeas proceedings challenging ongoing detention.