United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BOWBEER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Youssouph Sirleaf filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his
continued detention pending removal [Doc. No. 1]. The
petition was referred to this Court for a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District
of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. Because Sirleaf was removed
from the United States on April 17, 2018, the petition should
be dismissed as moot.
Court incorporates by reference the full factual background
section of its order of June 1, 2018. (Order at 1-3 [Doc. No.
18].) Briefly stated, through his § 2241 petition,
Sirleaf sought to be released from immigration detention
because he believed his removal was not significantly likely
to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. Based on
events and proceedings that began before the petition was
filed and continued thereafter, the Court acknowledged when
it issued the June 1 order the likelihood that Sirleaf's
removal had already been effectuated. The Court therefore
ordered Respondents to file a status update.
filed a supplemental response on June 15, 2018, advising the
Court that Sirleaf was removed from the United States on
April 17, 2018. (Suppl. Response at 1 [Doc. No. 19].) They
ask the Court to dismiss the petition as moot.
article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution,
federal court jurisdiction is limited “to actual,
ongoing cases and controversies.” Haden v.
Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000).
“When, during the course of litigation, the issues
presented in a case lose their life because of the passage of
time or a change in circumstances . . . and a federal court
can no longer grant effective relief, the case is considered
moot.” Id. (citation and quotation marks
omitted). Article III mootness divests the Court of subject
matter jurisdiction. See Id. If a court determines
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction at any time during
a case, the court must dismiss the action. Fed.R.Civ.P.
removal from the United States leaves nothing for the Court
to grant by way of habeas relief. He is no longer in the
custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), and as a result, the Court cannot order his release.
Any such order would be ineffectual, and therefore,
Sirleaf's habeas petition is moot. See, e.g.,
Ahmed v. Sessions, No. 16-cv-2124 (DSD/HB), 2017 WL
3267738, at *2 (D. Minn. July 11, 2017), R. & R.
adopted, 2017 WL 3268176 (D. Minn. July 31, 2017);
Mhanna v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. Citizenship &
Immig. Servs., No. 10-cv-292 (JRT/LIB), 2010 WL 5141803,
at *12 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2010).
recommending dismissal of the petition based on mootness,
however, the Court must determine whether any of the
following exceptions to mootness exist:
(1) secondary or “collateral” injuries survive
after resolution of the primary injury; (2) the issue is
deemed a wrong capable of repetition yet evading review; (3)
the defendant voluntarily ceases an allegedly illegal
practice but is free to resume it at any time; or (4) it is a
properly certified class action suit.
See Ahmed, 2017 WL 3267738, at *2 (quoting Riley
v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir. 2002)). The
Court concludes that none of the exceptions apply in this
case. First, there are no surviving secondary or collateral
injuries stemming from the allegedly prolonged detention, and
any alleged injuries arising from the final order of removal
itself are not cognizable in federal court. See Id.
Second, an allegedly unlawful period of immigration detention
is unlikely to be repeated, given Sirleaf's removal from
the United States. See Id. Third, there is no reason
to believe that Respondents acted purposely to deprive this
Court of jurisdiction. Rather, the record demonstrates that
Respondents consistently have been trying to effect
Sirleaf's removal since March 2017, months before the
petition was filed. Finally, the exception relating to class
actions is plainly inapplicable, as the petition at hand
contains a request for relief by an individual on his own
behalf, not a request for relief on behalf of a class of
individuals. See id.
based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
that Youssouph Sirleaf's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] be
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an
order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not
appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and
serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's
proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after
being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after
being served ...