Opinion
6:20-CV-1453
08-03-2021
ANUSHAN NAVARADNAM v. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL
ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Patrick J. Hanna United States Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is Respondents' Motion To Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1), as moot. [Rec. Doc. 15] For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Respondents' Motion To Dismiss be granted.
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2241) filed by pro se Petitioner Anushan Navaradnam. Petitioner was an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security / U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”). At the time of filing on November 9, 2020, he was detained at the Pine Prairie Correctional Center, in Pine Prairie, Louisiana. Petitioner challenged his continued detention pending removal.
On June 30, 2021, Petitioner was released from ICE custody pursuant to an order of supervision. [Doc. 15-1, p. 1]
The release from custody renders Navaradnam's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus moot, as he has achieved the relief sought in his habeas petition. See Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 717 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[A] moot case presents no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issues it presents.”).
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Federal Rule 12(b)(1) filed by the Government [Rec. Doc. 15], be GRANTED, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice and that this proceeding be terminated.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties have fourteen (14) calendar days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the clerk of court. No other briefs or responses (such as supplemental objections, reply briefs etc.) may be filed. Providing a courtesy copy of the objection to the magistrate judge is neither required nor encouraged. Timely objections will be considered by the district judge before he makes his final ruling.
FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS SERVICE SHALL BAR AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, EXCEPT UPON GROUNDS OF PLAIN ERROR, FROM ATTACKING ON APPEAL THE FACTUAL FINDINGS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO WHICH THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT.
THUS DONE