Opinion
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-217-CDL-MSH
10-09-2019
S. I., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents.
28 U.S.C. § 2241 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Presently pending before the Court is Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1). Respondents filed their motion on October 9, 2019, along with a sworn declaration of Deportation Officer Artis Johnson, stating that Petitioner was removed from the United States to Sierra Leone on August 12, 2019. Johnson Decl. 1, ECF No. 22-1. Due to Petitioner's removal, Respondents contend his petition is moot and should be dismissed. Resp'ts' Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 22. The Court agrees and recommends dismissal of this case as moot.
Respondents did not provide a copy of an executed Form I-205 Warrant of Removal/Deportation. The Court ORDERS Respondents to either produce the executed Form I-205 related to Petitioner's removal or provide a full explanation for its unavailability within fourteen (14) days. --------
"[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 under an order of supervision. Pet. 8-9, ECF No. 1. Petitioner has been removed from the country and, according to Respondents, is no longer in Respondents' custody. Johnson Decl. 1; Resp'ts' Second Mot. to Dismiss 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.
It is therefore recommended that Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) 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, this 9th day of October, 2019.
/s/ Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE