United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
E. STEELE SR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Ileana
Jimenez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #1) filed on November 17, 2017.
Respondents filed their Response (Doc. #7) on March 5, 2018.
The Petition is fully briefed and ripe for the Court's
Ileana Jimenez, is a native and citizen of Cuba. She has
resided in Miami, Florida for over twenty years. (Doc. 1 at
¶ 10). On February 5, 1990, Petitioner was convicted of
possession with intent to sale or deliver cocaine and
possession with intent to sell cannabis. Id.
Petitioner was sentenced to eighteen month probation.
Id. On March 21, 1990, Petitioner was granted
permanent residence in the United States. Id.
September 15, 2003, ICE issued a Notice to Appear and
commenced removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1229. Id. at ¶ 11. Petitioner was taken into
ICE custody on March 8, 2017. Id. at ¶ 11. On
April 7, 2017, Petitioner was ordered removed from the United
States by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioner
concedes that, as a result of this BIA decision, she is
subject to an administratively final order of removal.
Id. at ¶ 12.
November 17, 2017, Petitioner filed her Petition seeking
release from ICE custody arguing that there is no foreseeable
likelihood of effectuating the outstanding order of removal.
Petitioner was released from ICE custody on January 22, 2018.
(Doc. #7 at 2).
avers that she had been custody longer than the six month
period considered reasonable by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 691-702 (2001), and
should be released. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court concludes that this action must be dismissed as moot.
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.
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).
Petitioner does not challenge the underlying deportation
order. Instead she only seeks release from ICE custody.
Therefore, Petitioner's claim was resolved when she was
removed from ICE custody. Because Petitioner was released
from custody pending removal from the United States, 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, No.
4:12-cv-3792-JHH-RRA, 2013 WL 1490927, at *1 (N.D. Ala. 2013)
(holding “[s]ince 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.”
See 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 Fed.Appx. 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”). Accordingly, it is
Ileana Jimenez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...