United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by
pro se Petitioner Fahim Abdul Shaikh
(“Shaikh”) (#075535367). At the time of filing,
Shaikh was an immigration detainee in the custody of the
Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”). Shaikh was being
detained at the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana,
and challenged his continued detention pending removal.
Shaikh has been removed from the United States, the Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 11) should be GRANTED.
is a native and citizen of Pakistan. Shaikh alleges that he
was issued a final order of removal on June 14, 2018. (Doc.
1, p. 2). Shaikh claims he has been detained by ICE since he
was ordered removed, and there is no significant likelihood
of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. (Doc.
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11), the Government claims that
Shaikh has been removed.
Law and Analysis
relief sought by Shaikh was his immediate release from
custody. However, Shaikh is no longer in DHS/ICE custody.
(Docs. 11-2, 11-3).
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 Shaikh has been
removed (Doc. 11-3), 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 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.
Shaikh is no longer in DHS/ICE custody, IT IS RECOMMENDED
that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) be GRANTED, and
Shaikh's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, WITH PREJUDICE as to the
jurisdictional issue, and WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the merits
of Shaikh'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 ...