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 Miguel
Angel Lopez (“Lopez”) (A#206237782). At the time
of filing, Lopez was an immigration detainee in the custody
of the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”), being detained
at the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana. Lopez
challenges his continued detention under Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Lopez has been removed from the United States, his Petition
(Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED as MOOT.
is a native and citizen of El Salvador. He was ordered
removed from the United States in 2014. (Doc. 7-1, p. 2).
According to an email from the Consul General of El Salvador,
it was determined that Lopez was not a citizen of El
Salvador. (Doc. 7-1, p. 6). In 2015, Lopez was released under
an order of supervision. (Doc. 7-1, pp. 3-4). Lopez was again
arrested in 2017. (Doc. 7, p. 2; Doc. 7-1, p. 7). Lopez
alleges he has been in ICE custody since December 7, 2017.
(Doc. 7, p. 2). Lopez further claims there is no significant
likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future due to a prior determination that he is not a citizen
of El Salvador. (Doc. 1, p. 2).
Online Detainee Locator Service indicates that Lopez is no
longer in custody.
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index. The office of
the United States Attorney for the Western District of
Louisiana confirmed that Lopez has been removed to El
Law and Analysis
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.”
challenges his continued detention under Zadvydas.
However, bjecause Lopez has been removed, 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)).
Lopez is no longer in DHS/ICE custody, IT IS RECOMMENDED that
the 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 Lopez's claim.
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 to the undersigned
is neither required nor encouraged. Timely objections will be
considered by the District Judge before a final ruling.
to file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and
Recommendation within 14 days from the date of its service,
or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b),
shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the
factual findings ...