Opinion
4:20-CV-291-CDL-MSH
01-08-2021
M.L.P., Petitioner, v. Warden, STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Respondents' motion to dismiss Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (ECF Nos. 8, 1). Respondents filed their motion on January 8, 2021, along with a sworn declaration of Deportation Officer Carlos Santiago stating that Petitioner was removed from the United States to Cuba on December 29, 2020. Santiago Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 8-1. Due to Petitioner's removal, Respondents contend his petition is moot and should be dismissed. Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 8. The Court agrees and recommends dismissal of this case as moot.
Respondents indicate they are not yet in possession of a Form I-205, Warrant of Removal, but will produce one when it is available. Mot. to Dismiss 1 n.1, ECF No. 8. Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to supplement their motion to dismiss with the Warrant of Removal within twenty-one (21) days. In lieu of producing the Warrant of Removal, Respondents may also provide an affidavit from the Deportation Officer conducting the removal or an authenticated, contemporaneously-created business record documenting Petitioner's removal.
“Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the consideration of ‘Cases' and ‘Controversies.'” Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 and finding appeal moot where petitioner was removed from the United States). “The doctrine of mootness derives directly from the case or controversy limitation because an action that is moot cannot be characterized as an active case or controversy.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[P]ut another way, a cause is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Therefore, ‘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. (quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)).
Here, Petitioner sought an order granting him a writ of habeas corpus and release from custody under an order of supervision. Pet. 5, ECF No. 1. Petitioner has been removed from the country and, according to Respondents, is no longer in Respondents' custody. Mot. to Dismiss 2. Because 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 Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) be granted and Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (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 ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.