Karami v. Duke, 4:17-cv-1381-MHH-JEO. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20171017748
Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA , District Judge . Pro se petitioner Mahmoud Karami filed this 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus action on August 16, 2017. (Doc. 1). Mr. Karami challenges the legality of his continued detention by federal immigration authorities pending his removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. See generally Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The respondents filed a motion to dismiss this action a
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA , District Judge . Pro se petitioner Mahmoud Karami filed this 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus action on August 16, 2017. (Doc. 1). Mr. Karami challenges the legality of his continued detention by federal immigration authorities pending his removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. See generally Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The respondents filed a motion to dismiss this action as..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, District Judge.
Pro se petitioner Mahmoud Karami filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus action on August 16, 2017. (Doc. 1). Mr. Karami challenges the legality of his continued detention by federal immigration authorities pending his removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. See generally Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The respondents filed a motion to dismiss this action as moot. (Doc. 4).
Mr. Karami was released from ICE custody under an order of supervision on September 6, 2017. (Doc. 4-1, pp. 1-3). Therefore, Mr. Karami's habeas corpus claim for release under an order of supervision or for repatriation is moot because the Court no longer can 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).
The Court will grant the respondents' motion and dismiss this action by separate order.
Source: Leagle
