Ofori v. Department of Homeland Security, 4:17-cv-1839-LSC-JEO. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20171213a31
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION L. SCOTT COOGLER , District Judge . This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. 2241, filed by Petitioner Isaac Ofori, pro se. Petitioner challenges the legality of his continued detention by federal immigration authorities pending his removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act. ( See Doc. 1). The cause now comes to be heard on the Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (Doc. 7). The court concludes that the motion is d
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION L. SCOTT COOGLER , District Judge . This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. 2241, filed by Petitioner Isaac Ofori, pro se. Petitioner challenges the legality of his continued detention by federal immigration authorities pending his removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act. ( See Doc. 1). The cause now comes to be heard on the Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (Doc. 7). The court concludes that the motion is du..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
L. SCOTT COOGLER, District Judge.
This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed by Petitioner Isaac Ofori, pro se. Petitioner challenges the legality of his continued detention by federal immigration authorities pending his removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act. (See Doc. 1). The cause now comes to be heard on the Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (Doc. 7). The court concludes that the motion is due to be granted.
Respondent's motion is supported by a declaration by a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer indicating that Petitioner was released from ICE custody under an order of supervision on December 7, 2017. (Doc. 7-1). As a result, Petitioner's habeas corpus claim for release under an order of supervision or for repatriation is moot because the court can no longer provide meaningful relief. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003); Soliman v. United States ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2002). Respondents' motion is due to be granted and this action is due to be dismissed. A separate Final Order will be entered.
Source: Leagle
