United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Adriana Ferias (“Petitioner”), a native and
citizen of Venezuela, filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1,
filed November 4, 2016). At the time she filed her petition,
Petitioner was detained at the Glades County Detention Center
in Moore Haven, Florida, pending deportation under a final
order of removal. Id. at ¶ 17.
filed a motion to dismiss the petition for mootness (Doc. 10,
filed January 30, 2017). In their motion, Respondents assert
that Petitioner is no longer in the custody of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) because she has
been released under an order of supervision. Id. at
¶ 1. Petitioner has not responded to Respondents'
motion, and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, the
motion is ripe for review.
reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that this action
must be dismissed as moot.
September 11, 2015, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner
deported on the ground that she had been convicted of a
removable offense under INA §§ 237 or 212 (Doc. 1
at ¶ 15). Petitioner's appeal was denied, and the
removal order became final on February 17, 2016. Id.
at ¶ 16. In her § 2241 petition for habeas relief,
Petitioner seeks release from ICE custody on the ground that
the length of her current detention has been unreasonably
long under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701
(2001). Id. at ¶ 27.
response to this Court's order to show cause (Doc. 9),
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner's habeas
petition as moot (Doc. 10). Respondents urge that Petitioner
challenges only her continued detention, and “[w]hen a
habeas proceeding challenges the length of confinement as
opposed to the underlying conviction and the petitioner is
released, the petition should be dismissed as moot.”
Id. at 1-2. To their motion, Respondents attach a
Release Notification and Order of Supervision showing that
Petitioner was released from ICE custody on January 30, 2017
and is allowed to remain at large pending deportation (Doc.
case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or
the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d
1330, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2001)(internal punctuation 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.” Id. at 1336.
However, dismissal after release is not automatic; a habeas
petition continues to present a live controversy after the
petitioner's release or deportation when there is some
remaining “collateral consequence” that may be
redressed by success on the petition. See Spencer v.
Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998)(“Once the
convict's sentence has expired, however, some concrete
and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration
or parole-some ‘collateral consequence' of the
conviction-must exist if the suit is to be
maintained.”); Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47,
52 n.2 (2006) (case not mooted by petitioner's
deportation because the petitioner could still benefit by
pursuing his application for cancellation of removal). This
exception to the mootness doctrine applies when: (1) the
challenged action is too short in duration to be fully
litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there
is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party
would be subjected to the same action again. Weinstein v.
Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Carafas v.
LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968); Murphy v.
Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982).
instant case, Petitioner challenges her extended detention
and seeks only release from ICE custody (Doc. 1 at 7). She
does not challenge the underlying order of removal.
Therefore, Petitioner's claim was resolved by her
release. Because Petitioner was released pending removal, the
chances of her extended detention happening again are too
speculative to create a controversy sufficient to support a
claim for relief, and the exception to the mootness doctrine
does not apply. See Ijaoba v. Holder, Case
No. 4:12-cv-3792-JHH-RRA, 2013 WL 1490927, at *1 (N.D. Ala.
2013) (“Since the petitioner has been released pending
his deportation to Nigeria, the circumstances of this case
happening again are too speculative to create an actual
controversy sufficient to support a claim for
the Court can no longer give Petitioner any meaningful
relief, her § 2241 petition is moot and “dismissal
is required because mootness is jurisdictional.” Al
Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336, 1253; Riley v.
I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2002) (release from
detention under an order of supervision moots a
petitioner's challenge to the legality of his extended
detention); Nunes v. Decker, 480 F. App'x 173,
175 (3d Cir. 2012) (release of alien under order of
supervision who challenged only his extended detention mooted
§ 2241 habeas petition because the alien “achieved
the result he sought in his habeas petition”); see
also Hernandez-Gonzalez v. Holder, Case No.
2:13-cv-190-FtM-29DNF, 2013 WL 1729005, * 1-2 (M.D. Fla.
it is now ORDERED:
Respondents' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (Doc. 10) is
GRANTED. The 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of