Opinion
4:20-CV-287-CDL-MSH
01-06-2021
X.L.S., Petitioner, v. Warden, STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court received Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) on November 20, 2020. Pending before the Court is Respondents' motion to dismiss Petitioner's habeas application (ECF No. 7), filed on November 25, 2020. In his habeas application, Petitioner seeks, inter alia, release from Respondents' custody. Pet. 6, ECF No. 1. In support of their motion to dismiss, Respondents filed a copy Petitioner's order of supervision showing he was released from Respondents' custody on November 18, 2020. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, at 1-5, ECF No. 7-1. Because Petitioner has been released, Respondents now contend that Petitioner's pending habeas application is moot and should be dismissed as such. Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, 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, 133536 (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.
Petitioner has been released from Respondents' physical custody. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, at 1-8. While Respondents no longer detain Petitioner in their physical custody, Petitioner remains in Respondents' legal custody, 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 Fed.Appx. 769, 772 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240-43 (1963); Spencer v. Kenma, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998)). The Court ordered Petitioner to respond to Respondents' motion on November 25, 2020. Order 1-2, ECF No. 8. He failed to respond and has not challenged his supervised release. Indeed, in his habeas application, Petitioner specifically requested that he be released under an order of supervision. Pet. 6. Thus, Petitioner does not contest the conditions of his supervised release such that this Court could maintain jurisdiction over his habeas petition. See Alvarez, 454 Fed.Appx. at 772. Since the Court can no longer afford Petitioner any meaningful relief, the case is moot and “dismissal is required because mootness is jurisdictional.” Al Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336.
Consequently, the Court recommends that Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be granted and Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (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.