Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-cv-02138
08-06-2020
LUIS ANGEL NUÑEZ VIERA, A 203 525 127, Petitioner, v. CLAIR DOLL, Warden, Respondent.
(BRANN, J.)
() REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 13, 2019, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) In this petition, Luis Angel Nuñez Viera, a native and citizen of Cuba, challenges the legality of his extended detention without an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. At the time of filing, Nuñez Viera was being held in the custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement at York County Prison, which is located in York County, Pennsylvania.
On August 5, 2020, the respondent filed a status report in which he advised that Nuñez Viera had been released from ICE custody on bond on May 28, 2020. (Doc. 11). Because Nuñez Viera "has achieved the result he sought in his habeas petition and his change in circumstances has 'forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief,'" his habeas petition is now moot. Nunes v. Decker, 480 Fed. App'x 173, 175 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Artway v. Attorney Gen., 81 F.3d 1235, 1246 (3d Cir. 1996)); see also Rojas v. Lowe, No. 1:CV-13-871, 2013 WL 5876851, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2013).
Accordingly, it is recommended that the petition (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED AS MOOT and this case be marked as CLOSED. Dated: August 6, 2020
s/Joseph F . Saporito. Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated August 6, 2020. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
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.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. Dated: August 6, 2020
s/Joseph F . Saporito. Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge