United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
A. Sargus, Jr. Chief Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case is before the Court to consider Respondent's Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Doc. 8). For the
reasons that follow, the Court RECOMMENDS
that the Motion be GRANTED, and that this
action be DISMISSED.
October 2, 2017, Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mali,
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, explaining that he had been in the
custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) at the Morrow County Jail since March 23,
2017, when he was released from prison after serving two
years. (Doc. 1 at 1-2, 5). Petitioner indicated that he was
willing to return to Mali, but objected to his deportation to
any other country. (Id. at 8). Petitioner argued
that the length of his detention pending removal contravened
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) (Count I), and was in violation of
his substantive and procedural due process rights (Counts II
and III). (Id. at 9-10 (citing Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)). Thus, Petitioner requested
that this Court grant him a writ of habeas corpus directing
Respondents to immediately release him from custody.
(Id. at 11).
Court ordered Respondents to show cause why the writ should
not be granted (Doc. 5). The Clerk sent a copy of this
Court's Order to Petitioner at the Morrow County Jail,
but it was returned as undeliverable on October 23, 2017.
(See Docs. 6, 7).
October 26, 2017, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 8). Attached to Respondents'
Motion is a declaration from ICE Deportation Officer Amanda
Glassburn, indicating that Petitioner was removed from United
States to Mali on October 3, 2017. (Doc. 8-1 at ¶ 5).
well established that federal courts may adjudicate only live
cases or controversies. Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45,
48 (1969). Consequently, federal courts lack jurisdiction to
consider a case when it has “lost its character as a
present, live controversy and thereby becomes moot.”
Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 512 (6th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). “Simply
stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no
longer ‘live' or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id.
(quoting Int'l Union v. Dana Corp., 697 F.2d
718, 720-21 (6th Cir. 1983)).
courts have determined that where an alien is released from
ICE custody pending removal from the United States, his
petition for relief under Zavydas is moot.”
Patel v. Streiff, No. 06-00584, 2008 WL 748396, *2
(S.D. Ala. Mar. 18, 2008) (internal quotations and citation
omitted); see also Dubois v. Hendricks, No. 14-3861,
2014 WL 4105482, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2014) (finding
petition moot because there was no longer a live case or
controversy); Emeni v. Holder, No. 6:13-cv-6404,
2014 WL 347799, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2014) (same);
Rojas v. Lowe, No. 1:cv-13-871, 2013 WL 5876851, at
*3 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2013) (same).
on the foregoing, the Court finds that the petition no longer
reflects a present, live controversy, and it is, therefore,
MOOT. Consequently, the Court
RECOMMENDS that Respondents' Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 8) be GRANTED, and that this
case be DISMISSED.
on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that
the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED (Doc.
8), and that this action be
DISMISSED as MOOT.