Akinruntan v. Holder, Jr. et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION-The court is of the opinion that the R&R 18 is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Signed by Judge James H Hancock on 11/12/2013. (AVC)

FILED
2013 Nov-12 PM 03:25
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
OLUSEGUN OKAKEKAN AKINRUNTAN
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, United States
Attorney General, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13-cv-0010-JHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a habeas corpus case filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It was filed by Olusegun
Okakekan Akinruntan (“Petitioner”), pro se, who raises claims related to his detention pending
his removal from the United States pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8
U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (See Doc. 1 at 1-25 (“Petition” or “Pet.”); see also generally Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). After Petitioner was released under an order of supervision, the
Respondent moved to dismiss the action as moot. (Doc. 14). On September 30, 2013, the
magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) in which
he recommended as follows: (1) that Respondents’ motion to dismiss as moot be granted in part,
as it relates to his habeas claims challenging his prior detention; (2) that Petitioner’s claims be
denied insofar as Petitioner asserts that he is not subject to a final order of removal and contests
any conditions imposed by his order of supervision; and (3) that Petitioner’s remaining claims,
which raise constitutional challenges to the conditions of his prior confinement and access to
courts, be dismissed without prejudice because they are not cognizable on habeas review. (Doc.
18). No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation.

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the
magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Accordingly, Respondents’ motion to dismiss the action as moot (Doc. 14) is due
to be GRANTED IN PART, as it relates to Petitioner’s habeas claims challenging the legality of
his prior detention, which are thus due to be DISMISSED AS MOOT. To the extent that
Petitioner’s claims in the petition are not moot, they are due to be DENIED IN PART and
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. The claims are due to be DENIED insofar as
Petitioner asserts that he is not subject to a final order of removal and contests any conditions
imposed by his order of supervision. The remaining claims, which raise constitutional
challenges to conditions of confinement and access to courts, are due to be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate final judgment will be entered.

DONE this the

12th

day of November, 2013.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2