Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coronado v. U.S. Attorney General

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

September 3, 2019

NERVIN EUCLIDES CORONADO, Petitioner
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENRAL, ET AL., Respondents

          DRELL, JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Nervin Euclides Coronado (“Coronado”) (#042087142) and a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Government. (Docs. 1, 12). At the time of filing, Coronado was an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”), detained at the Alexandria Staging Facility in Alexandria, Louisiana. Coronado challenged his continued detention pending removal.

         Because Coronado has been removed from the United States, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) should be GRANTED.

         I. Background

         Coronado is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. (Doc. 5-2, p. 3). Following a conviction of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to impair, impede, obstruct, and defeat the Internal Revenue Service, Coronado was ordered removed from the United States. (Docs. 5-2, 5-3). Coronado alleges that his removal to the Dominican Republic is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future. (Doc. 1).

         In its Motion to Dismiss, the Government shows that Coronado has been removed. (Doc. 12-2).

         II. Law and Analysis

         The Government argues that the § 2241 Petition is moot because Coronado has been removed from the United States. (Doc. 12).

         “Article 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.” Id.

         Based on the Government's evidence showing that Coronado has been removed (Doc. 12-2), the § 2241 Petition is moot. See Francis v. Lynch, 622 Fed.Appx. 455, 455-56 (5th Cir. 2015) (challenge to length of detention awaiting removal under Zadvydas became moot when petitioner was removed); Odus v. Ashcroft, 61 Fed.Appx. 121 (5th Cir. 2003) (same). 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. 1974)).

         III. Conclusion

         Because Coronado is no longer in DHS/ICE custody, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) be GRANTED and Coronado's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, WITH PREJUDICE as to the jurisdictional issue and WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the merits of Coronado's claim.[1]

         Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this Report and Recommendation have 14 calendar 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 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.