Cook v. Redlake Band of Chippewa Indians, the

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota October 9, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                
DAVID JAMES COOK, SR.,             Case No. 24-cv-1535 (ECT/SGE)        

               Petitioner,                                              
v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               
RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA                                               
INDIANS,                                                                
              Respondent.                                               
   This matter comes before the Court on David James Cook, Sr.’s Petition for a Writ 

of  Habeas  Corpus  pursuant  to

25 U.S.C. § 1303

  (“Petition”).1  Mr.  Cook’s  Petition 
challenges the legality of his detention by the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians. (See 
Pet., Dkt. No. 1.) This Court previously ordered Respondent to file an Answer to the 
Petition, certifying the true cause and proper duration of Mr. Cook’s confinement and 
showing cause why the writ should not be granted. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court has received 

that Answer (Dkt. No. 6), and the deadline for filing a reply has passed. This matter is 
therefore ripe for the Court’s consideration. For the reasons outlined below, this Court 
recommends that Mr. Cook’s Petition be denied as moot and this action be dismissed 
without prejudice.                                                        




1 Although Petitioner’s habeas petition purports to bring his claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241

, this 
Court construed the claim as being brought pursuant to

25 U.S.C. § 1301

. (See Order, Dkt. No. 2.) 
                        BACKGROUND                                      
   Mr. Cook was arrested and detained by Red Lake police on February 23, 2024. (See 
Aff. of Ogema Neadeau ¶ 14, Dkt. No. 6.) At the time of his arrest, Mr. Cook had two 

outstanding warrants issued by the Red Lake Nation Tribal Court and a bench warrant 
issued by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 12-14.) Mr. 
Cook was held at Red Lake Detention Center pending execution of the federal warrant and 
extradition. (Id. ¶ 15.) On April 17, 2024, Mr. Cook was ordered to be extradited into 
federal custody. (Id. ¶ 19.) The U.S. Marshals Service took custody of Mr. Cook on April 

22, 2024. (See Aff. of Joseph Plumer ¶ 6, Ex. D, Dkt. No. 6)              
   I.   DISCUSSION                                                      
   Respondent contends that Mr. Cook’s challenge to his incarceration is moot and 
requests that this matter be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (See Answer at 9, Dkt. No. 
9.) This Court agrees.                                                    

    The United States Constitution limits the  jurisdiction of the federal courts to 
ongoing cases and controversies. Haden v. Pelofsky,

212 F.3d 466

, 469 (8th Cir. 2000); see 
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “When, during the course of litigation, the issues presented in a 
case ‘lose their life because of the passage of time or a change in circumstances . . . and a 
federal court can no longer grant effective relief,’ the case is considered moot.” Haden, 

212 F.3d at 469 (alteration in original) (quoting Beck v. Mo. State High Sch. Activities 
Ass'n,

18 F.3d 604, 605

 (8th Cir. 1994)).  When an action is moot, it no longer satisfies the 
case-or-controversy requirement and the court “must dismiss the action.” Potter v. Norwest 
Mortg.,

329 F.3d 608

, 611 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Minn. Humane Soc'y v. Clark,

184 F.3d 795

, 797 (8th Cir. 1999)).                                                
   The Petition presents no ongoing case or controversy. Mr. Cook challenges the 

legality of his detention by the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians. (See Pet., Dkt. No. 
1.) But Mr. Cook has been released from the Red Lake Detention Center. Thus, an order 
for his release would be ineffectual. Because this Court cannot grant the relief Mr. Cook 
requests (because Mr. Cook has already received that relief, namely, his release from 
incarceration), Mr. Cook’s Petition challenging his continued incarceration is moot. 

   Before dismissing the Petition as moot, however, the Court must first consider 
whether any of the exceptions to mootness apply. See Sayonkon v. Beniecke, Case No. 12-
cv-27 (MJD/JJK),

2012 WL 1621149

, at *2 (D. Minn. Apr. 17, 2012) (citing Spencer v. 
Kemna,

523 U.S. 1, 7

 (1998)), report and recommendation adopted,

2012 WL 1622545

 
(D. Minn. May 9, 2012). A petition should not be dismissed as moot if: “(1) secondary or 

‘collateral’ injuries survive after resolution of the primary injury; (2) the issue deemed 
wrong is capable of repetition yet evading review; (3) the defendant voluntarily ceases an 
allegedly illegal practice but is free to resume at any time; or (4) it is a properly certified 
class action suit.”

Id.

 (quoting Riley v. I.N.S.,

310 F.3d 1253, 1256

 (10th Cir. 2002)).  
   The Court finds that  none of these exceptions apply here. First,  there  are  no 

allegations of any continued or collateral injury stemming from the period of Mr. Cook’s 
alleged unlawful detention. Second, it is unlikely that this exact scenario could repeat itself 
because Mr. Cook has been released from Red Lake Nation custody. Third, there is no 
indication that the Red Lake Detention Center released Mr. Cook to evade judicial review. 
Lastly, this matter has not been certified as a class action. Accordingly, the Court finds that 
no exception to the mootness doctrine applies.                            
   As explained above, Mr. Cook’s Petition challenges the validity of his detention by 

the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, but he has been released from the Red Lake 
Detention Center. No live case or controversy remains. The Petition is now moot. This 
Court therefore recommends that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for lack of 
jurisdiction.                                                             
                     RECOMMENDATION                                     

   Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY RECCOMENDED that:                                                  
1.  Petitioner David James Cook, Sr.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 
   to

24 U.S.C. § 1303

  (Dkt.  No.  1)  be  DENIED  AS  MOOT.      

2.  That  this  action  be  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE  for  lack  of 
   jurisdiction.                                                        

Dated: October 9, 2024                                                    
                            s/Shannon G. Elkins_________                
                            SHANNON G. ELKINS                           
                            United States Magistrate Judge              



                          NOTICE                                        

Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the 
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.                                                                  
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a 
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being 
served  a  copy”  of  the  Report  and  Recommendation.  A  party  may  respond  to  those 
objections  within  14  days  after  being  served  a  copy  of  the  objections.   See  Local 
Rule 72.2(b)(2).  All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set 
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).