Summary
finding petition moot where petitioner was deported to native country
Summary of this case from Phang v. WhiddonOpinion
Civil Action Number 01-3710
May 9, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
This matter is before the Court upon the Petition of Frantz Gauchier for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Having considered the petition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court hereby DISMISSES the Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief.
I. Background
Petitioner, Frantz Gauchier, is a fifty-five year old native and citizen of Haiti. He applied for admission to the United States as an intending immigrant on or about March 10, 1970. However, he did not have valid documentation. Thereafter, he illegally remained in the United States.
On June 10, 1999, he was convicted in the New York State Supreme Court for the County of Kings of the offense Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, to wit: Cocaine in violation of section 220.39 of the New York State penal law.
The INS initiated deportation proceedings against petitioner in June of 1999. Due to a violation of that probation the INS initially charged the petitioner with deportability under Section 212(a)(2)(i)(II). At his deportation hearing, the petitioner conceded that he was deportable as charged but requested the opportunity to apply for asylum based upon the Convention Against Torture Act (CAT).
The Immigration Judge found that the petitioner was deportable as charged and found him ineligible for the "CAT" claim under the torture convention. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). However, he subsequently and voluntarily withdrew that appeal. Consequently, on May 8, 2000, the BIA advised that there was nothing pending before it. Therefore, the immigration judge's decision was affirmed and the order of removal became final. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) then began efforts to effectuate petitioner's removal from the United States.
Plaintiff filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on December 4, 2001. In his petition, plaintiff requested that he be released from detention by the INS. The government moved to dismiss said writ of habeas corpus; however, prior to this court ruling, petitioner was removed from the United States and returned to his native land of Haiti on March 25, 2002 as evidenced by a declaration of an immigration officer. As such, the government filed a second motion to dismiss as moot.
II Legal Analysis
The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner's writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on two alternative theories:
A. Petition is Moot
To satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show: (1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1. The Court cannot retain jurisdiction over cases in which one or both of the parties lacks a continuing interest.
In the case at hand, the petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus must be deemed moot, because the petitioner has been deported to his native land of Haiti. As such, there is no longer a live case or controversy as required under Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1. Having found that petitioner is no longer being detained, the Court must conclude that the petitioner lacks standing to maintain this suit and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.
B. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
A writ of habeas corpus may not be petitioned to the District Court unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies.Rodriguez v. McElroy, 53 F. Supp.2d 587, 590 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), citing Guida v. Nelson, 603 F.2d 261, 262 (2nd Cir. 1979). Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, "a party may not seek federal judicial review of an adverse administrative determination until the party has first sought all possible relief within the agency itself."Howell v. INS, 72 F.3d 288, 291 (1995), citing Guitard v. United States Secretary of Navy, 967 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir. 1992), citing Meyers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.,, 303 U.S. 41, 50-51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 463-64, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938). If a party fails to exhaust administrative remedies, then the court may dismiss the action because subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. DiLaura v. Power Auth., 982 F.2d 73 79 (2nd Cir. 1992).
In the present case, the petitioner appealed his deportation order to the BIA; however, he subsequently withdrew that administrative appeal, which left a final order of removal. Accordingly, petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief be, and the same is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
FINAL JUDGMENT
The Court having dismissed the writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of the plaintiff, Frantz Gauchier; accordingly,IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the claim of the plaintiff, Frantz Gauchier, against defendant, Christine G. Davis, be and the same are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.