Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-3154.
October 28, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently before this Court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, by an individual challenging his "indefinite detention" by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement["ICE"]. Petitioner was released from ICE custody on August 4, 2004. Therefore, it is recommended that his habeas petition be dismissed as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
In preparing this Report and Recommendation I have reviewed the following documents: Mr. Soth's § 2241 petition and the Government's response (with exhibits). Many of the underlying facts in this case are set forth by Petitioner in his habeas petition, and have neither been confirmed nor denied by the Government in its response. I will accept Petitioner's facts for the purposes of this Report and Recommendation.
Petitioner, Natt Soth, represents that he is a Cambodia citizen who arrived in the United States as a political refugee on January 23, 1985. According to Petitioner, he changed his status to legal permanent resident in 1989. Petitioner states that he was arrested "for a domestic dispute" on August 23, 2003, and was ultimately sentenced to five years probation. On August 26, 2003, according to Petitioner, he was "out on bail but INS/ICE agents were waiting and took him into custody for the 1993 sentence." § 2241 Habeas Petition [Docket Entry No. 1] at p. 3.
It is undisputed that Petitioner was ordered deported on March 24, 2004. Because Petitioner did not appeal the March 24, 2004 removal order, it became administratively final on that date.
Petitioner asserts that he was ordered removed back to Cambodia on March 26, 2004. The two day discrepancy in the date the removal order was issued is not material.
At the time that he filed his § 2241 petition (July 2, 2004), Mr. Soth remained ICE custody and was being detained at the Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania. In his habeas petition, Mr. Soth represents that the Respondents have not been able to execute the order of removal, despite several attempts by Petitioner and ICE agents to obtain travel documents, because Cambodia has not agreed to repatriate him. Noting that his situation has no "ending point," Petitioner challenges his continuing ICE confinement as "indefinite detention" and requests that he "be "release[d] under any condition this court and or respondent may require." Id. at pp. 2-7.
On September 14, 2004, the Government responded to Mr. Soth's habeas petition. While reserving argument on the question of whether Zadvydas mandates Mr. Soth's release, and asserting that Petitioner failed to name the proper respondents, the Government confirmed, with supporting documentation, that Petitioner was released pursuant to an Order of Supervision on August 4, 2004. In its response, the Government asks this Court to dismiss Mr. Soth's § 2241 petition as moot, because he has achieved all of the relief sought. Government's Response to Habeas Petition [Docket Entry No. 5] at pp. 1-4.
533 U.S. 678 (2001).
As the Government argues, dismissal of Mr. Soth's habeas petition as moot is warranted under the circumstances of this case, where Mr. Petitioner's habeas challenge is limited to his continuing detention, and does not attack the March 24, 2004 final order of removal. See Tjandra v. Ashcroft, CA No. 03-4493, 2004 WL 2278680 at *1 (3d Cir. October 6, 2004) (dismissing appeal as moot where Petitioner was deported while her appeal was pending and the only relief sought in § 2241 petition was relief from custody pending disposition of her petition for review of her removal order).
RECOMMENDATION
Consistent with the above discussion, it is my recommendation that Petitioner's § 2241 petition be dismissed as moot.