United States District Court, S.D. Florida
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WHITE MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Robinson has filed a pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, seeking a
custody redetermination by the Department of Homeland
Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Cause has been referred to the undersigned for consideration
and report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rules
8 and 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
consideration the Court has the Petition (DE# 1) and the
Respondent's response (DE# 8) and a status report (DE#
11). The most recent of which reports that the petitioner has
been removed from the United States to Jamaica.
time the petition was filed, on April 3, 2017, the petitioner
was in custody of ICE and detained at the Krome Processing
Center, in Miami, Florida. The petitioner stated that he has
been in the continuous custody of ICE since August 8, 2016
and was ordered removed on August 25, 2016. He contended that
on that same date he was subject to mandatory detention. He
sought a new hearing to establish a bond for his release,
alleging that it he was not likely to be removed to Jamaica
in the reasonably foreseeable future. The petitioner was in
the process of appealing his order of removal. The order of
removal subsequently became final on June 30, 2017 and he was
removed from the United States on August 31, 2017.
federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a
habeas proceeding, the petitioner must be “in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States....” 28 U.S.C. §2241(c)(3);
accord Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989).
The “in custody” determination is made at the
time the section 2241 petition is filed. Carafas v.
LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). Once the
jurisdictional prerequisite of custody is met at the time of
filing, jurisdiction is not defeated by the petitioner's
subsequent release from custody while the petition is
pending. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234.
the filing of the instant petition, on August 31, 2017, the
petitioner was removed from the United States to Jamaica.
See Affidavit of Deportation Officer Roberto A.
Torres Cruz (DE# 11-1). Although Petitioner is no longer
confined, he has satisfied the “in custody”
requirement based on his status at the time of filing.
the “in custody” requirement has been met, this
Court nonetheless has no jurisdiction in this case.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal
‘Judicial Power, ' that is, federal-court
jurisdiction, to “‘Cases' and
‘Controversies.'” United States Parole
Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395 (1980);
Soliman v. United States ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237,
1242 (11th Cir. 2002)(citation omitted); see
also Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335
(11th Cir. 2001)(same). “This
case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages
of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.”
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
(1990). The parties must continue to have a “personal
stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit. Id. at
478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101
(1983). In other words, a petitioner “must have
suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable
to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.” Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477.
becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer
‘live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). 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, 296 F.3d at 1242. Thus, a case is moot when
it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to
which the court can give meaningful relief. Therefore, 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. In fact, dismissal is required because
mootness is jurisdictional.
a habeas petition challenges prison officials' authority
to keep a prisoner in custody, in general, the
petitioner's release moots a habeas petition. See
generally Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632 (1982).
This Court as well as several other district courts have
determined that where an alien is released from ICE custody
pending removal from the United States “his petition
for habeas relief under Zadvydas is moot.”
He v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 1687796, *1 (W.D. La. 2006).
See also Revan v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 3992291, *2
(S.D.Fla. 2008), citing, He v. Gonzales,
supra; Ismaila v. Department of Homeland
Sec., 2009 WL 1635781, *1 (S.D.Ala. 2009),
citing, He v. Gonzales, supra;
Abdalla v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2315089, *2
(W.D.N.Y.2004)(“As, however, Petitioner does not
dispute he was released from administrative custody on
January 20, 2016, the instant Petition no longer presents a
case or controversy pursuant to Article III, §2 of the
United States Constitution.”), adopted by Abdalla
v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2491646 (W.D. N.Y. 2004).
instant proceeding, the petitioner sought a bond
redetermination. Because The petitioner has now been released
from ICE custody, he has obtained the relief he sought. In
addition, The petitioner does not allege that collateral
consequences exist to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement
of Article III. Accordingly, no exception to the mootness
doctrine is applicable here.
this Court can no longer order the federal respondent to
grant the relief requested in the petition, in that the
petitioner is no longer in the custody of ICE, there is
“nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to
do so.'” Soliman, supra, 296 F.3d
at 1243, quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18
(1998). This action no longer presents a justiciable case or
controversy within the meaning of Article III. Accordingly,
this federal petition should be dismissed as moot. See
Sule v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.,
1999 WL 668716 (10th Cir. 1999)(petitioner's
deportation to Nigeria rendered moot his §2241 habeas
petition challenging both the order of deportation and his
INS detention); see also Suarez-Tyida v. United
States, 85 Fed.Appx. 711, 715-16, 2004 WL 68758, *4
(10th Cir. 2004)(holding that because alien had
been released from indefinite immigration detention, he had
“effectively received the relief he has requested,
” and his petition was moot.).
therefore recommended that the instant pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§2241 be dismissed as moot and the case closed.
to this report may be filed with the District Judge within
fourteen days ...