Echegoyen v. Hassell et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 4/1/14. (SAC )
FILED
2014 Apr-01 PM 02:43
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
MARVIN RAMON ECHEGOYEN,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT HASSELL, in his capacity as
Chief/Warden, Etowah County
Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4:13-cv-02242-KOB-JEO
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this action, Petitioner Marvin Ramon Echegoyen, pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention pending his removal from the United
States pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (Doc.
1). The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) in
which he recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice because this court is
without jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims challenging his removal order; his claims
contesting his detention since his removal order became final are premature; and any claims
contesting detention prior to the finality of the removal order are moot. (Doc. 6). No party has
filed any objections.
The court has carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. This court ADOPTS the magistrate
judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, this court finds that this action
is due to be dismissed without prejudice because this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his
claims; his post-removal detention claims are premature; and his pre-removal claims are moot.
The court will enter a separate Final Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of April, 2014.
____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?