Filed: Apr. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr., District Judge. This case is before the court on Respondents' Motion to Dismiss as Moot (Doc. # 13), filed April 3, 2014. In their motion, Respondents note that Petitioner was removed from the United States on March 27, 2014. (Doc. # 13-1). Because Petitioner has been removed, the court can no longer provide meaningful relief. Thus, the court finds that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906 , 913 (11th
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr., District Judge. This case is before the court on Respondents' Motion to Dismiss as Moot (Doc. # 13), filed April 3, 2014. In their motion, Respondents note that Petitioner was removed from the United States on March 27, 2014. (Doc. # 13-1). Because Petitioner has been removed, the court can no longer provide meaningful relief. Thus, the court finds that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906 , 913 (11th C..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr., District Judge.
This case is before the court on Respondents' Motion to Dismiss as Moot (Doc. # 13), filed April 3, 2014. In their motion, Respondents note that Petitioner was removed from the United States on March 27, 2014. (Doc. # 13-1). Because Petitioner has been removed, the court can no longer provide meaningful relief. Thus, the court finds that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Respondents' motion to dismiss is due to be granted and the petition is due to be dismissed.
A separate order will be entered.
