Opinion
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-136-CDL-MSH
12-13-2018
YVES JULES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Respondents.
28 U.S.C. § 2241 RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1). In his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner contends that he should be released from custody. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 9, ECF No. 1. On August 29, 2018, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) along with the Declaration of Edwin M. Almodovar (Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 1, ECF No. 9-1) showing that Petitioner was released from DHS/ICE custody on July 27, 2018 to the custody of the State of Florida, St. Lucie County Sheriff, based on an outstanding warrant issued by the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida. Because Petitioner is no longer in the custody of DHS/ICE, Respondents now contend that Petitioner's pending § 2241 petition is moot and should be dismissed. Mot. to Dismiss 1. The Court agrees and recommends dismissal of this case as moot.
"[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "If events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed." Id. at 1336.
Here, Petitioner sought an order granting him a writ of habeas corpus and release from custody. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 9. Petitioner has been released from DHS/ICE's physical custody. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 1 ¶ 5 & Ex. B. Since the Court can no longer give the Petitioner any meaningful relief, the case is moot and "dismissal is required because mootness is jurisdictional." Al Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336.
It is therefore recommended that Respondent's motion (ECF No. 9) be granted and Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy hereof. The district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, "[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice."
SO RECOMMENDED, this 13th day of December, 2018.
/s/ Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE