WILCINOT v. HOLDER, 7:14-CV-122-HL-MSH. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140924e47
Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 02, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STEPHEN HYLES, Magistrate Judge. On August 25, 2014 the Court received a motion from Petitioner seeking to withdraw his application for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner states that his removal proceedings were terminated and he was released from custody on August 7, 2014. (Mot. to Withdraw Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1-3.) Since Petitioner has been released from custody, his petition for habeas relief is moot. See, e.g., Al Najjar v. shcroft ,
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STEPHEN HYLES, Magistrate Judge. On August 25, 2014 the Court received a motion from Petitioner seeking to withdraw his application for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner states that his removal proceedings were terminated and he was released from custody on August 7, 2014. (Mot. to Withdraw Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1-3.) Since Petitioner has been released from custody, his petition for habeas relief is moot. See, e.g., Al Najjar v. shcroft , ..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEPHEN HYLES, Magistrate Judge.
On August 25, 2014 the Court received a motion from Petitioner seeking to withdraw his application for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner states that his removal proceedings were terminated and he was released from custody on August 7, 2014. (Mot. to Withdraw Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶¶ 1-3.) Since Petitioner has been released from custody, his petition for habeas relief is moot. See, e.g., Al Najjar v. shcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001) ("If events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed.")
Petitioner's motion should thus be granted and his application for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice to his right to file a new § 2241 petition in the future if a change in his circumstances occurs. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this recommendation with the United States District Judge within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy of this recommendation.
SO RECOMMENDED.
Source: Leagle
