United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BOWBEER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 14, 2019, Petitioner 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. Petitioner was removed from the
United States on September 3, 2019, and his petition should
be dismissed as moot.
is a citizen and native of South Sudan. (Pet. at 2;
Resp't's Resp. at 2 [Doc. No. 11].) He entered the
United States as a refugee on or about August 14, 2003. (Pet.
at 2; Pryd Decl. Ex. A [Doc. No. 12-1].) On or about March
20, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security brought
Petitioner into custody and commenced removal proceedings
against him. (Pet. at 2.) On July 16, 2014, an immigration
judge in Bloomington, Minnesota, ordered Petitioner removed
from the United States to South Sudan. (Pryd Decl. ¶ 4,
Ex. A.) On later determination that removal would not ensue
in the reasonably foreseeable future, Petitioner was released
under an Order of Supervision on April 17, 2015. (Pryd Decl.
December 14, 2018, Petitioner was arrested and served with a
Revocation of Release because recent cooperation with the
South Sudanese Government had made removal likely in the
reasonably foreseeable future. (Pryd Decl. ¶ 6.) On
September 3, 2019, Petitioner was removed from the United
States to South Sudan via commercial airline. (Pryd Decl.
¶ 7, Ex. B). Respondent asks 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 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
and as a result, the Court cannot order his release. Any such
order would be ineffectual. Therefore, Petitioner'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 Petitioner'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. Finally, the exception relating
to class actions is inapplicable, because Petitioner
requested relief only on his own behalf, not on behalf of a
class of individuals. See id.
based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that
Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] be
DISMISSED AS MOOT.