United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Ahmed I. A. Petitioner,
Secretary Homeland Security; William Barr, Attorney General;Scott Baniecke, ICE Field Office; and Kurt Freitag, Freeborn County Sheriff, Respondents.
I. A., Freeborn County Adult Detention Center, P.O. (pro se
Petitioner);  and
Voss, Ann M. Bildtsen, and Friedrich A. P. Siekert, Assistant
United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office,
(for Respondents Secretary Homeland Security, William Barr,
and Scott Baniecke); and
John Walker, Freeborn County Attorney, Freeborn County
Government Center, (for Respondent Kurt Freitag).
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Ahmed I. A.'s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (“Petition”). (Pet., ECF No. 1). This matter
has been referred to the undersigned for a Report and
Recommendation to the Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, District
Judge for the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn.
LR 72.1. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends
that the Petition be denied as moot and this action be
is a native and citizen of Somalia. (ECF No. 5-1 at 3).
Petitioner was admitted to the United States as a lawful
permanent resident in 1996. (ECF No. 5-1 at 3). In 2003, the
Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings
against Petitioner after he was convicted of terroristic
threats. (ECF No. 5-1 at 4). Petitioner then applied for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. (ECF No. 5-1 at 4). The
immigration court denied Petitioner's application in
2004. (ECF No. 5-1 at 4). In May 2018, Petitioner filed a
motion to reopen his application based on changed country
condition, which the immigration court granted. (ECF No. 5-1
at 4). In October 2018, the immigration court again denied
Petitioner's application and ordered him removed from the
United States to Somalia. (ECF No. 5-1 at 4, 18).
October 2018, Petitioner filed this Petition. Petitioner
argued that his “prolonged and continued detention is
unreasonable, and violates [his] substantive rights to due
process under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
[Amendment].” (Pet. at 1, 6). Petitioner sought
immediate release from custody because “[t]he
Government has been unable to effectuate [his] removal and
there is no likelihood of [his] removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” (Pet. at 6-8).
November 29, 2018, Petitioner was removed from the United
States on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement flight. (ECF
Nos. 4 at 3; 5-1 at 22). Respondents request that this matter
be dismissed as moot in light of Petitioner's removal.
(See generally ECF No. 4).
III of the United States Constitution only allows federal
courts to adjudicate actual, ongoing cases or
controversies.” Potter v. Norwest Mortg.,
Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 611 (8th Cir. 2003); see
U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. The case-or-controversy
requirement exists at all stages of federal judicial
proceedings. Potter, 329 F.3d at 611. It is of no
consequence that a claim was live at an earlier stage in the
proceedings; a claim must be live when the court decides the
issue. South Dakota v. Hazen, 914 F.2d 147, 150 (8th
Cir. 1990). “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.” Haden v. Pelofsky,
212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000) (alteration in original)
(quoting Beck v. Mo. State High Sch. Activities
Ass'n, 18 F.3d 604, 605 (8th Cir. 1994)). Moot
actions must be dismissed. Potter, 329 F.3d at 611.
case, Petitioner seeks release from custody. (Pet. at 8).
Petitioner was removed, however, on November 29, 2018. (ECF
No. 5-1 at 22). The Court can no longer order
Petitioner's release because he has already been removed.
Since Petitioner has been removed, nothing in his situation
would change by granting the relief that he seeks.
“This is the very definition of mootness.”
Kargbo v. Brott, No. 15-cv-2713 (PJS/LIB), 2016 WL
3676162, at *2 (D. Minn. July 6, 2016) (citing
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 86, 89
(2013)); see also Estrada-Heredia v. Holder, No.
12-cv-1157 (SRN/SER), 2012 WL 4839113, at *2 (D. ...