Echegoyen v. Hassell et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 4/1/14. (SAC )

Download PDF
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?