REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, Magistrate Judge.

This habeas corpus action brought pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is before the Court on respondents' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, to which petitioner has not responded. (Doc. 5). For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that the motion be granted.

On March 27, 2017 petitioner initiated this action for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner challenges his continued detention by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) pursuant to a removal order. (Doc. 1). Petitioner was taken into ICE custody on or about August 8, 2016. Petitioner argues that his continued detention is unlawful because he has been detained for more than six months with no significant likelihood of his actual removal, in violation of Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. 678 (2001).1 (See Doc. 1 at PageID 6-8). Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody. (Id. at PageID 8).

On May 16, 2017, respondents filed a motion to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 5). According to respondents, petitioner has been removed from the United States. In support of the motion, respondents include a copy of a Warrant of Removal/Deportation. (Id. at Ex. A). The document indicates that petitioner was removed from the United States by plane on April 18, 2017 from Mesa, Arizona. (Id. at PageID 27). The warrant is signed by Terry A. Stevens, a Detention and Deportation Officer who witnessed petitioner's departure. (See id.). In light of petitioner's release from custody, respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Respondents' motion should be granted. Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution limits the federal judicial power to the adjudication of cases and controversies. In the context of a habeas corpus petition, a district court generally lacks jurisdiction over the petition if the petitioner is not in government custody. Therefore, except in limited circumstances not applicable to the case-at-hand,2 a petitioner's release from custody generally moots a habeas petition. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631-32 (1982).

Petitioner does not challenge his removal order in this case. He instead contests his indefinite detention pending removal. (See Doc. 1). In these circumstances, petitioner's April 18, 2017 removal renders this action moot and deprives the Court of jurisdiction. See Novikova v. Prendes, Case No. 3:06-cv-0039, 2006 WL 1424255, at *2 (N.D. Texas May 24, 2006) (finding that the removal of a petitioner challenging her detention pending removal deprived the district court of jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition). See also Kahn v. Attorney Gen., Case Nos. 1:15-cv-2014, 1:16-cv-85, 2016 WL 4004616, at *2 (N.D. Ohio May 17, 2016) ("As Petitioner has received his requested relief by being released from custody on an order of supervision, there is no longer an active case or controversy.") (Report and Recommendation), adopted, 2016 WL 4009885 (N.D. Ohio June 25, 2016); Willix v. Holder, No. 1:11-cv-894, 2012 WL 463830, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Jan 24, 2012) (finding habeas petition moot where petitioner seeking release pending removal is released pursuant to an order of supervision) (Report and Recommendation), adopted, 2012 WL 463825 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2012); Felix v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 3:05-cv-2211, 2007 WL 951452, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2007) ("When an alien subject to removal challenges only his detention pending removal, his release pending removal, whether or not conditional, entails no collateral consequences. It renders the petition moot because he has received all the relief he sought and would have been entitled to."). Therefore, because petitioner has been removed, the undersigned recommends that respondents' motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) be GRANTED and the petition be dismissed.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.