United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
For Surendra Thapa, Plaintiff: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Chhetry & Assoc, New York, NY.
For John Morton, Jeh Johnson, Eric H Holder, Jr, Director LaSalle Detention Center, Defendant: Cristina Walker, LEAD ATTORNEY, U S Attorneys Office (SHV), Shreveport, LA.
JAMES D. KIRK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. JUDGE DEE D. DRELL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES D. KIRK, UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by petitioner Surendra Thapa (" Thapa") on July 18, 2014 (Doc. 1). Thapa, a native and citizen of Nepal, contests his continued detention by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (" ICE") pending his removal from the United States. At the time of filing his petition, Thapa was being detained in the LaSalle Detention Facility in Trout, Louisiana. The sole relief requested by Thapa is release from custody pending his removal, pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).
The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 11), with an affidavit by Brian Gueringer, the Assistnt Field Office Director of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility at Oakdale, Louisiana. Gueringer states in his affidavit that Thapa was removed to Nepal on September 25, 2015 (Doc. 11, Ex.).
Since Thapa is no longer detained by ICE and has been removed from the United States, his petition for release pending removal is moot. Therefore, Respondents, motion to dismiss should be granted.
Based on the foregoing discussion, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Respondents' motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) be GRANTED and that Thapa's habeas petition be DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. No other briefs (such as supplemental objections, reply briefs etc.) may be filed. Providing a courtesy copy of the objection to the magistrate judge is neither required nor encouraged. Timely objections will be considered by the district judge before he makes a final ruling.
A PARTY'S FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS SERVICE SHALL BAR AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, EXCEPT ON GROUNDS OF PLAIN ERROR, FROM ATTACKING ON APPEAL THE UNOBJECTED-TO ...