United States District Court, S.D. Florida
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
matter is before the Court on Jesus Mendoza Rodriguez's
(“Petitioner”) pro se amended petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(DE#18) and his Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief.
(DE#12). Petitioner challenges the length of his civil
detention while he awaits removal from this country.
Petitioner poses a specific question to this Court: whether
his prolonged mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1225 without access to a bond hearing violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (DE#18).
case has been referred to the Undersigned for consideration
and report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636; S.D. Fla. Local
Rule 1(f) governing Magistrate Judges; S.D. Fla. Admin. Order
2019-2; and the Rules Governing Section 2241 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
Petitioner is no longer in federal custody, this Court has no
further jurisdiction and should DISMISS the matter as MOOT.
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). Petitioner had
clearly met the “in custody” requirement in that
he was confined when he filed the instant petition.
III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial
Power,' that is, federal-court jurisdiction, to
‘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). 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 after the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the
court of the ability to give the moving party meaningful
relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed. In fact,
dismissal is required because mootness is jurisdictional.
habeas petition challenges prison officials' or, more
accurately in this case, immigration officials' authority
to keep a prisoner in custody, the petitioner's release
moots the petition. See generally Lane v. Williams,
455 U.S. 624, 632 (1982). Generally, where an alien is
released from ICE custody pending removal from the United
States, his petition for habeas relief is moot. See
generally He v. Gonzales, No. Civ.A.05-1912, 2006 WL
1687796, *1 (W.D. La. 2006). See also Revan v.
Mukasey, No. 08-20289-CIV, 2008 WL 3992291, *2 (S.D.Fla.
2008), citing, He v. Gonzales, supra; Ismaila v.
Department of Homeland Sec., No. CA 09-0184, 2009 WL
1635781, *1 (S.D. Ala. 2009), citing, He v. Gonzales,
the instant proceeding, on March 25, 2019, Petitioner was
released from ICE custody on parole pending the completion of
his immigration proceedings. (DE#31-1:2). Petitioner was
released without bond. (Id.). The venue of his
immigration case was also transferred to the immigration
court in Los Angeles, California. (Id. at 4).
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 thus no longer presents a justiciable
case or controversy within the meaning of Article III. This
federal petition should, therefore, be DISMISSED as MOOT.
on the foregoing, it is recommended that the amended petition
for writ of habeas corpus (DE#18) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 be DISMISSED AS MOOT without prejudice to
Petitioner's right to file a future petition if
circumstances change and that Petitioner's pending motion
for injunctive relief (DE#12) be DENIED as MOOT. Given the
order of the ...