Opinion
4:20-CV-243-CDL-MSH
08-09-2021
N.M.I., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Stewart Detention Center, et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Stephen Hyles UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court received Petitioner's pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) on October 13, 2020. Pending before the Court is Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17). On August 6, 2021, Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United States, and submitted, as evidence, a Form I-205 Warrant of Removal/Deportation showing that Petitioner was removed from the United States on July 28, 2021. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, at 1-2, ECF No. 17-1. Due to Petitioner's removal, Respondents move to dismiss his habeas application as moot. Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 17. The Court recommends that the motion be granted.
“[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 Respondents' custody. Pet. 8, ECF No. 1. Petitioner has been removed from the country and, according to Respondents, is no longer in Respondents' custody. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, at 1-2. 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.
The Court, therefore, RECOMMENDS that Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) be GRANTED and Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED AS MOOT. 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,