United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
J. LIMBERT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28, 2018, pro se Petitioner Lansana Conteh
(“Petitioner”) executed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which was
filed with this Court on June 14, 2018. ECF Dkt.
In his petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus,
Petitioner requests that he be released from detention by the
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department
of Homeland Security (“ICE”) pending the receipt
of travel documents necessary to effect his removal from the
United States. ECF Dkt. #1.
September 11, 2018, this case was referred to the undersigned
for a Report and Recommendation as to the § 2241
petition. ECF Dkt. #3. On February 7, 2019, Respondent United
States Attorney General (“Respondent”) filed a
motion to dismiss, asserting that this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over Petitioner's case because he has
been removed from the United States and deported to his
native country of The Gambia as of November 29, 2018. ECF
Dkt. #7. Respondent attaches as support a Declaration of
Deportation Officer Husband and a Warrant of
Removal/Deportation, both of which inform the Court that
Petitioner was removed from the United States and deported to
his native land of The Gambia on November 29, 2018. ECF Dkt.
#s 7-1, 7-2. Respondent also refers to a prior Declaration of
Deportation Officer Husband filed November 1, 2018 in his
motion and brief. ECF Dkt. #7, citing to ECF Dkt. #6-1.
Petitioner did not respond to Respondent's motion to
following reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court
GRANT Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF Dkt. #7) and
DISMISS Petitioner's § 2241 federal habeas corpus
petition in its entirety with prejudice.
SYNOPSIS OF THE FACTS
is a native and citizen of The Gambia. ECF Dkt. #1 at 1-2.
According to Respondent, who cites to a declaration by
Officer Husband, a Deportation Officer with the United States
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”),
Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”),
Petitioner attempted to enter the United States without
proper entry documentation on or about December 16, 2016. ECF
Dkt. #7-1 at 2, citing ECF Dkt. #6-1 at 1. Petitioner was
charged as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §
212(a)(2)(7)(A)(i)(I) on January 19, 2017. Id. He
appeared at a hearing on March 9, 2017 and sought to apply
for relief from removal. Id. Petitioner, through
counsel, filed applications for relief from removal and an
immigration judge denied all forms of relief and issued a
final order of removal on June 15, 2017. Id.
Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”), and on November 27, 2017, the BIA
dismissed his appeal and his removal order became
administratively final on November 27, 2017. Id.
Petitioner remained in custody with ICE during this period.
Id. ICE requested that the government of The Gambia
issue travel documents so that Petitioner could be removed
from the United States and deported to The Gambia.
28, 2018, Petitioner executed the instant federal habeas
corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging
ICE's continued physical custody of him while awaiting
travel documents from The Gambia as violative of his due
process rights under the United States Constitution. ECF Dkt.
#1. On November 1, 2018, after receiving extensions of time
within which to file, Respondent filed an Answer and Return.
ECF Dkt. #6. Respondent attached a Declaration of Deportation
Officer Husband to his Answer and Return. ECF Dkt. #6-1.
on October 26, 2018, the Republic of the Gambia certified
that Plaintiff is its citizen and it issued an Emergency
Travel Document to facilitate repatriation. ECF Dkt. #7-2 at
3, citing ECF Dkt. #6-1 at 2-3. Petitioner continued to
remain in ICE custody while awaiting the issuance of travel
documents from The Gambia. ECF Dkt. #7-1 at 3.
November 29, 2018, ICE successfully removed Petitioner from
the United States to The Gambia. ECF Dkt. #7-2 at 1-2, citing
ECF Dkt. #7-2.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts
may only adjudicate actual, ongoing cases or controversies.
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
(1990) (internal citations omitted). “Article III
denies federal courts the power ‘to decide questions
that cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case
before them.'” Id. (quoting North
Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)). It is well
settled that the parties must continue to have a personal
stake in the outcome. Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477;
Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983); Baker
v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
courts lack jurisdiction over prisoners who are not in
government custody. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). There are
limited exceptions to this rule, including when the released
petitioner can establish that he will suffer future
collateral consequences as a result of the detention or that
the case is “capable of repetitive, yet evading
review.” Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632
(1982). However, Petitioner has not invoked any exceptions
and none of the exceptions are present in the instant case.
Further, the Sixth Circuit has held that once the Court can
no longer grant the requested relief, and when there has been
no showing that the petitioner's rights will be violated
in the future or that any future violation could not be fully
litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, the request
for relief is rendered moot. See Enazeh v. Davis,
107 Fed. App'x 489 (6th Cir. 2004).
both of the counts in Petitioner's § 2241 federal
habeas corpus petition concerned his continued detention by
Respondent pending removal to The Gambia. ECF Dkt. #1.
However, Petitioner has been released from ICE detention and
has been removed from the United States and deported to his
native country, as evidenced by the Warrant of
Removal/Deportation and the recent Declaration of Deportation
Officer Husband. ECF Dkt. #s 7-1, 7-2. Petitioner does not
allege that he will suffer any ...