Perez Flores v. Holder et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION finding that 1 Petition for Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot and GRANTING 13 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 8/28/2015. Copy mailed to petitioner on this date.(YMB)
2015 Aug-28 PM 02:45
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CARLOS OMAR PEREZ-FLORES,
ERIC HOLDER JR., et al.,
) Case No.: 4:13-cv-02255-AKK-JHE
On December 16, 2013, Petitioner Carlos Omar Perez-Flores (“PerezFlores”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Doc. 1). At the time he filed his petition, Perez-Flores, a native of El Salvador,
was incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center, in the custody of the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In his petition, PerezFlores alleged that ICE was illegally detaining him pending his deportation to El
Salvador. On July 31, 2015, Perez-Flores was deported from the United States.
(Docs. 13 & 13-1). Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot,
since Perez-Flores is no longer in ICE custody. (Doc. 13). For the reasons stated
below, Respondents’ motion will be granted and the action be dismissed as moot.
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the
consideration of “cases or controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. The doctrine
of mootness is derived from this limitation because “an action that is moot cannot
be characterized as an active case or controversy.” Adler v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). A case is moot and must be dismissed if the
court can no longer provide “meaningful relief.” Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906,
913 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Perez-Flores’s release from ICE custody
rendered his petition moot.
The relief Perez-Flores sought in his petition was to be released from ICE
custody. Because Perez-Flores is no longer in ICE custody, his petition has been
rendered moot, unless an exception to the mootness doctrine applies. There are
two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) collateral consequences and (2)
“capable of repetition yet evading review.” Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234,
237 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982). Neither exception applies
here. The collateral consequences exception does not apply because there are no
“disabilities or burdens which may flow” from the custody Perez-Flores
challenges. See Carafas, 391 U.S. at 237. The exception for events “capable of
repetition, yet evading review” does not apply here either. Perez-Flores has been
released from custody, and the potential circumstances of this case happening
again are too speculative to create an actual controversy sufficient to support a
claim for relief. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975) (holding that
the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception applies when (1) the
challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation
or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining
party would be subjected to the same action again.). Because there is no longer
any relief that can be granted to Perez-Flores, his petition is due to be dismissed as
Based on the foregoing, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, (doc. 13), is
GRANTED. A separate order will be entered.
DONE the 28th day of August, 2015.
ABDUL K. KALLON
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?