Opinion
Case No. 4:16cv224-WS/CAS
01-03-2017
ONEIL RICARDO COLLINS, A# 040-388-266, Petitioner, v. LORETTA LYNCH, et al., Respondents.
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Respondents filed a response in opposition to the petition, ECF No. 14, and Petitioner filed a reply. ECF No. 16. Thereafter, Respondents filed a supplemental response. ECF No. 17. On November 15, 2016, a Report and Recommendation was entered, ECF No. 20, recommending that the petition be granted. It was concluded that Respondents had not demonstrated there was a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents claimed a travel document request was pending, but the record demonstrated Petitioner had been "approved" for a travel document a year ago. Because it appeared to be only speculation that Petitioner would soon be removed, the recommendation was made to release Petitioner from custody under such terms and conditions deemed necessary pursuant to § 1231(a)(3). Id.
Thereafter, Respondents filed two supplemental notices advising that Petitioner had been released under an order of supervision on December 8, 2016. ECF No. 22-1; see also ECF No. 21. However, on the following day, the Consulate of Jamaica advised that a travel document was approved and would be received by December 14, 2016. ECF No. 22-1 at 3. Petitioner was then taken back into custody on December 9, 2016. Id.
On December 27, 2016, an Order was entered directing the parties to file a response by filed by January 4, 2017, advising whether or not the petition was moot. ECF No. 23. Although Petitioner has not yet responded, Respondents advise that Petitioner remains in detention, but "the Jamaican government has approved a travel document" and Petitioner "is scheduled to be removed in January 2017." ECF No. 24.
Having been informed that a travel document has been approved is a substantial step forward. It now appears that Petitioner's removal is significantly likely in the foreseeable future. Because Petitioner's removal from the United States is scheduled to be carried out this month, the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, should be denied.
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be DENIED because it appears that Petitioner's removal is significantly likely to occur within the next thirty days.
This Amended Report and Recommendation replaces the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 20, entered on November 15, 2016. --------
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 3, 2017.
S/ Charles A. Stampelos
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.