Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-256 SECTION P.
May 8, 2008
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Mouhamadou Konate's pro se petition for habeas corpus ( 28 U.S.C. § 2241) filed on February 22, 2008. When he filed his petition, Konate was in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security/Immigration Customs Enforcement (DHS/ICE). He was detained at the Oakdale Detention Center, Oakdale, Louisiana.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), petitioner challenged his continued institutional. Based upon this allegation, the government was served and in due course filed a response to the petition. In a Motion to Dismiss filed on April 28, 2008, the government alleged (and provided documentary proof in support thereof) that petitioner had in fact been released from ICE custody on April 2, 2008, and was residing in the State of New York.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The undisputed evidence before the court establishes beyond any doubt that the petitioner is no longer in custody. Further, the record before the court establishes that the petitioner has demanded only his immediate release throughout these proceedings. Therefore, in light of his release, the court concludes that petitioner's habeas challenge to post-removal-order detention is now moot and should be dismissed.
Therefore,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as moot;
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have ten (10) business days from service of this report and recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of any objections or response to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within ten (10) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See, Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).