Filed: Jun. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS GREG KAYS , Chief District Judge . Mohammed Camara ("Camara") petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2441, seeking release from the custody of United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement ("ICE") officials (Doc. 1). Now before the Court is Respondent Jefferson Sessions, III's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 13). As explained below, the motion is GRANTED. Camara initiated this action asserting
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS GREG KAYS , Chief District Judge . Mohammed Camara ("Camara") petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2441, seeking release from the custody of United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement ("ICE") officials (Doc. 1). Now before the Court is Respondent Jefferson Sessions, III's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 13). As explained below, the motion is GRANTED. Camara initiated this action asserting t..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
GREG KAYS, Chief District Judge.
Mohammed Camara ("Camara") petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2441, seeking release from the custody of United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement ("ICE") officials (Doc. 1). Now before the Court is Respondent Jefferson Sessions, III's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 13). As explained below, the motion is GRANTED.
Camara initiated this action asserting that ICE was improperly extending his detention while he was awaiting removal, pursuant to a March 31, 2018, order of removal. During the pendency of this action, Camara was transported from the United States to Freetown, Sierra Leone, and therefore, is no longer in the custody of ICE officials. Respondent argues that because Camara is no longer in custody, his petition is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Article III of the United States Constitution restricts the decisionmaking power of the federal judiciary to cases involving "a case or controversy." A federal court must determine that "there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality" to warrant granting relief. The controversy must exist during all phases of the litigation. Cases involving substantial controversies may become moot [during their pendency] by the occurrence of subsequent events.
Flittie v. Erickson, 724 F.2d 80, 81 (8th Cir.1983).
Camara does not oppose Defendant's motion. Accordingly, because Camara is no longer in ICE custody, his petition is moot. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
