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 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
Coronado has been removed from the United States, the Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 12) should be GRANTED.
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).
Motion to Dismiss, the Government shows that Coronado has
been removed. (Doc. 12-2).
Law and Analysis
Government argues that the § 2241 Petition is moot
because Coronado has been removed from the United States.
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.”
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.
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
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 ...