JALLOH v. HOLDER, 4:14-cv-0986-VEH-SGC. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20141231788
Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 in which the petitioner, Osman Jalloh, proceeding pro se, has sought to challenge his continued detention pending removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. See generally, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this action as moot on the grounds the petitioner was released from
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 in which the petitioner, Osman Jalloh, proceeding pro se, has sought to challenge his continued detention pending removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. See generally, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this action as moot on the grounds the petitioner was released from t..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge.
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which the petitioner, Osman Jalloh, proceeding pro se, has sought to challenge his continued detention pending removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. See generally, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this action as moot on the grounds the petitioner was released from the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on November 6, 2014, pursuant to an order of supervision. (Doc. 12; see also Doc. 12-1).
Because the petitioner has been released on an order of supervision, the court can no longer provide meaningful relief, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 423 U.S. 1, 8 (1998) (once habeas petitioner is released from custody, he must demonstrate collateral consequences to avoid mootness doctrine). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is due to be GRANTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is due to be DISMISSED. A separate final judgment will be entered.
Source: Leagle
