United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner
Mamadou Jobe (“Jobe”) (A#088057445), and a Motion
to Dismiss filed by the Government. (Docs. 1, 16). At the
time of filing, Jobe was an immigration detainee in the
custody of the Department of Homeland Security/U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”),
detained at the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.
Jobe was subsequently transferred to the Etowah County Jail
in Gadsden, Alabama. Jobe challenges his continued detention
pending removal under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
Jobe has been released from detention, the Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 16) should be GRANTED.
a native and citizen of Senegal who entered the United States
on an unknown date and time. (Doc. 9, p. 1). Jobe was ordered
removed on November 10, 2011. (Doc. 9-2, p. 1). According to
the Government, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed
Jobe's appeal on March 20, 2014. (Doc. 9, p. 1). He was
placed on supervision and released. (Doc. 1-2, p. 2). Jobe
was arrested by ICE on December 14, 2017, and has remained in
custody since that date. (Doc. 1-2, p. 2). A request for a
travel document was submitted to the Consulate General of the
Republic of Senegal on January 19, 2018. (Doc. 9, p. 1; Doc.
9-1, p. 1).
March 5, 2018, ICE issued a “Decision to Continue
Detention, ” claiming that Jobe's removal was
“expected in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
(Doc. 9-3, p. 1). On June 28, 2018, ICE issued another
“Decision to Continue Detention, ” indicating
that it was “currently working with the Government of
Senegal to secure a travel document.” (Doc. 9-4, p. 1).
Because a travel document was “expected, ” Jobe
was ordered to remain in custody. (Doc. 9-4, p. 1). ICE
provided the same reasons to continue detention in decisions
dated October 9, 2018 and January 11, 2019. (Docs. 9-5, 9-6).
Only the March 5, 2018 decision indicates that Jobe's
removal was expected in the “reasonably foreseeable
future.” (Doc. 9-3, p. 1). Over 16 months have passed
since that decision was issued.
to the Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16), Jobe has
been released pending his removal under an order of
Law and Analysis
Government argues that the § 2241 Petition is moot
because Jobe has been released on supervision, which is all
of the relief that he requested. (Doc. 16).
III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial
Power,' that is, federal-court jurisdiction, to
‘Cases' and ‘Controversies.'”
United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445
U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot “when the
issues presented are no longer ‘live' or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). The
case-or-controversy requirement “subsists through all
stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and
appellate.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7
(1998) (citations omitted). The parties must continue to have
a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit.
Id. Therefore, throughout the litigation, the
plaintiff “must have suffered, or be threatened with,
an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has not specifically
considered whether a Zadvydas challenge to continued
detention by an alien under a final order of removal is
mooted by the alien's subsequent release on supervision,
other circuits have so found. See Dien Thanh Ngo v.
Johnson, 3:19-CV-976, 2019 WL 3468909, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
July 17, 2019), report and recommendation adopted,
2019 WL 3459817 (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2019) (citing Riley
v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding
that petitioner's release from detention under an order
of supervision mooted his challenge to the legality of his
extended detention); Nunes v. Decker, 480 Fed.Appx.
173, 174-75 (3rd Cir. 2012) (finding appeal moot where the
petitioner's release during its pendency provided him the
result he sought in his habeas petition and
“forestalled any occasion for meaningful
relief”); Alvarez v. Conley, 145 Fed.Appx.
428, 429 (4th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the
petitioner's release rendered moot his appeal since his
§ 2241 petition only sought release from detention under
Zadvydas)). District courts in this circuit have
likewise found that release on supervision moots a §
2241 petition challenging continued detention pending removal
where release from custody was the only relief sought.
See Dien Thanh Ngo, 2019 WL 3468909, at *2; Chen
v. Cole, 1:16-CV-0025, 2016 WL 7670691, at *1 (W.D. La.
Aug. 23, 2016), report and recommendation adopted,
2017 WL 89483 (W.D. La. Jan. 9, 2017); Jeune v.
Smith, 11-CV-0903, 2012 WL 827004, at *1 (W.D. La. Jan.
18, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012
WL 826985 (W.D. La. Mar. 7, 2012); Singh v. Mukasey,
No. 3:08-CV-2162, 2009 WL 1097255, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22,
requested a release from custody, and the Government has
presented evidence showing that Jobe has been released under
an order of supervision. (Doc. 16-2). Thus, the § 2241
Petition is moot. If a controversy is moot, the forum court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Carr v. Saucier,
582 F.2d 14, 16 (5th Cir. 1978) (citing North Carolina v.
Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971); Locke v. Board of
Public Instruction, 499 F.2d 359, 363-364 (5th Cir.