Opinion
Case No. 4:07cv315-WS/WCS.
June 4, 2008
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on July 17, 2007, with the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, doc. 5. Petitioner paid the filing fee, doc. 5, and service was directed. Doc. 6. Respondents filed an answer to the petition, doc. 12, on November 8, 2007, and Petitioner filed a response, doc. 13, on November 27, 2007.
Petitioner had alleged he is a native of Guyana, and stated that because his native country refused to issue travel documents for him, Respondents would be unable to remove him. Doc. 1. At the time Petitioner filed his petition, he had been held in detention for almost a year, having entered immigration custody on October 21, 2006. Petitioner did not challenge the validity of the removal order, rather, he only sought release from custody under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id. Respondents claimed in the Answer that Petitioner had "failed to demonstrate that his removal in the foreseeable future [was] unlikely." Doc. 12, p. 8. Further, Respondents argued that Petitioner was not assisting in removal efforts because he did not provide the Embassy of Guyana with his birth certificate. Id., at 9. Petitioner responded on November 27, 2007, to the arguments made in the Answer. Doc. 13.
The petition alleged that Petitioner had provided his birth certificate. Doc. 1, p. 5.
Due to the length of time in reviewing the merits of the petition, and noting that nothing had been received from Petitioner since the filing of his reply the end of November, 2007, a telephone call was made to confirm that Petitioner was still in custody at the Wakulla County Jail. The information received was that Petitioner was no longer there. Thus, an Order was entered directing Respondents to file a response indicating the current location of Petitioner if still in detention. Doc. 14.
Respondents filed a response to that order on June 2, 2008, and advise that the relief requested by Petitioner was granted to him on May 12, 2008. Doc. 15. Attached to the response was an exhibit showing that Petitioner was released from detention to an order of supervision. Doc. 15, ex. 1. Respondents have not provided an address for Petitioner.
At any rate, it is apparent that the case is moot because Petitioner has received the relief he requested. There is nothing further for the Court do to. Moreover, the service order directed Petitioner to keep the Court informed of his whereabouts and custody status. Doc. 6. Having failed to alert the Court that he has been released from detention, it appears that Petitioner has abandoned this litigation.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the § 2241 petition be DISMISSED because this case is moot and Petitioner has been released from detention.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.