Opinion
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-195-CDL-MSH
11-21-2018
THACH TAI, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents.
28 U.S.C. § 2241 RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Presently pending before the Court is Respondent's motion to dismiss Petitioner's application for habeas relief, filed on October 24, 2018. (ECF No. 7.) In his application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner contends that he should be released from Respondents' custody. Pet. 7, ECF No. 1. In support of their motion to dismiss, Respondents filed a copy of the Order of Supervision showing Petitioner was granted supervised release on October 18, 2018. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, ECF No. 7-1. Because of Petitioner's release, Respondents now contend that Petitioner's pending § 2241 petition is moot and should be dismissed as such. Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 7. The Court agrees and recommends dismissal of this case as moot.
"[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. Pet. 7. Petitioner has been released from Respondent's physical custody. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A. Furthermore, Petitioner is not contesting the conditions of his supervised release such that this Court could maintain jurisdiction over his habeas petition. See Alvarez v. Holder, 454 F. App'x 769 (11th Cir. 2011). Since 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 notes that Petitioner has been released under an Order of Supervision and so, while no longer in the physical custody of Respondents, Petitioner remains in the legal custody of Respondents as "the Supreme Court has found that the in custody requirement is satisfied where restrictions are placed on a petitioner's freedom of action or movement." Alvarez v. Holder, 454 F. App'x 769, 772 (11th Cir. 2011). --------
Consequently, it is recommended that Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be granted and Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice to his right to file a new § 2241 petition in the future if a change in his circumstances occurs. 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, this 21st day of November, 2018.
/s/ Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE