Opinion
4:18-CV-01546
02-22-2019
KARAN SAINI, Petitioner, v. WARDEN CRAIG A. LOWE, et al., Respondents
(Judge Brann) () REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction.
Because the petitioner Karan Saini's removal order has become final and he is now in custody under the post-removal order statute—8 U.S.C. 1231, this habeas corpus case in which Saini challenged his immigration detention under the pre-removal order statute—8 U.S.C. § 1226—is moot. Thus, we recommend that the petition be dismissed and that the case file be closed.
II. Factual Background and Procedural History.
On August 3, 2018, Saini, through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Saini is a citizen and native of India, and he has been in the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") since October of 2017. Immigration officials denied his requests for release on parole, and an Immigration Judge denied his request for release on bond. Saini filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that ICE was violating his due process rights by detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) pending completion of his removal proceedings. He sought release from custody or, in the alternative, a bond hearing.
The respondents filed a response to the petition on September 19, 2018, arguing, among other things, that the Court should deny Saini's petition because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies or, in the alternative, because he was afforded a bond hearing that comported with due process. Later, the respondents filed a Notice of Change in Detention Status and Suggestion of Mootness stating that, on January 24, 2019, Saini withdrew his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The respondents contend that because Saini withdrew that appeal, he is no longer incarcerated under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), but rather he is now incarcerated under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). And as such, according to the respondents, Saini's petition challenging his detention under § 1226(a) is now moot.
We ordered that if Saini does not agree that his petition is moot, he shall file, on or before February 15, 2019, a reply to the respondent's Change in Detention Status and Suggestion of Mootness. Saini has not filed such a reply.
III. Discussion.
Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to "cases" and "controversies." U.S. Constitution, art. III, § 2. "This case-or-controversy limitation, in turn, is crucial in 'ensuring that the Federal Judiciary respects the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society.'" Plains All Am. Pipeline L.P. v. Cook, 866 F.3d 534, 539 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006)). "And courts enforce it 'through the several justiciability doctrines that cluster about Article III,' including 'standing, ripeness, mootness, the political-question doctrine, and the prohibition on advisory opinions.'" Id. (quoting Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir. 2009)).
This case involves mootness, which is "a doctrine that 'ensures that the litigant's interest in the outcome continues to exist throughout the life of the lawsuit,' and which is 'concerned with the court's ability to grant effective relief.'" Hamilton v. Bromley, 862 F.3d 329, 335 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Freedom from Religion Found. Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold Sch. Dist., 832 F.3d 469, 476 (3d Cir. 2016), and Cty. of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001)). "[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies," Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990), and "[i]t is a basic principle of Article III that a justiciable case or controversy must remain 'extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.'" United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011) (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)). "Federal courts may not 'decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them' or give 'opinion[s] advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.'" Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).
"A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a 'Case' or 'Controversy' for purposes of Article III—'when the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.'" Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982)). In other words, "a case is moot if 'developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief.'" Hamilton, 862 F.3d at 335 (quoting Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996)).
This case is moot. In his habeas petition, Saini sought release from custody under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) pending the completion of his removal proceedings. But Saini is no longer in custody under § 1226(a). Rather, he is now in custody under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2), which mandates detention during the 90-day removal period. Here, the 90-day removal period began on January 24, 2019, when Saini withdrew his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and his removal order became administratively final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i) ("The removal period begins on the latest of the following: (i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively final. . . ."). Since Saini is no longer being held under § 1226(a), his petition challenging his detention under that statute is now moot. See Ufele v. Holder, 473 F. App'x 144, 146 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of § 2241 habeas petition challenging detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) as moot where while the petition was pending, the petitioner's custody switched from § 1226 to § 1231); Liang v. Lowe, No. 1:17-CV-1735, 2018 WL 4680054, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2018) (dismissing habeas petition as moot where petitioner challenged his pre-final order detention but his custody status shifted to post-final order detention while the petition was pending).
IV. Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot and that the case file be closed.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or
matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 22nd day of February, 2019.
S/Susan E . Schwab
Susan E. Schwab
Chief United States Magistrate Judge