Roland v. Holder et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 6/8/2012. (FNC)

Download PDF
FILED 2012 Jun-08 PM 02:16 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION OVIESA PRINCE EJAKPOVI ROLAND, Petitioner, v. ERIC HOLDER, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 4:12-cv-0086-PWG ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (doc. 1). The petitioner claims that he is being illegally detained by the respondents pending his removal from the country and that he is due to be released from custody. The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this matter as moot (doc. 12). Upon consideration, the court finds that the respondents’ motion to dismiss is due to be GRANTED. In support of their motion to dismiss, the respondents have filed a copy of an unsworn declaration, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, by the Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Gadsden, Alabama (doc.12 Exh. A). In that declaration, respondents assert that as of April 11, 2012, the petitioner is no longer in the United States and no longer in custody. Therefore, the petitioner’s habeas claim for release under an order of supervision or for repatriation is moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003) (“a case must be dismissed as moot if the court can no longer provide ‘meaningful relief’”). Based on the foregoing, the court FINDS that the respondents' motion to dismiss this action as moot (doc. 12) is due to be GRANTED. The court will enter a separate final order. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2012. ____________________________________ KARON OWEN BOWDRE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?