Arguelles-Sanguineti v. Holder et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 8/8/2014. (PSM)

FILED
2014 Aug-08 AM 11:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
CARLOS ENRIQUE ARGUELLESSANGUINETI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, JR. et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
) Case No: 4:14-cv-00609-AKK-JHE
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 2, 2014, Petitioner Carlos Enrique Arguelles-Sanguineti
(“Arguelles-Sanguineti”) 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, Arguelles-Sanguineti, a
native of Peru, was incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center, in the
custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In his
petition, Arguelles-Sanguineti alleged that he was being illegally detained by ICE
pending his deportation to Peru. On June 20, 2014, Arguelles-Sanguineti was
released from ICE custody and removed from the United States. (Docs. 9, 9-1).
Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot. (Doc. 9). 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).
The relief Arguelles-Sanguineti seeks in his petition is to be released from
ICE custody.

Because Arguelles-Sanguineti is no longer in ICE custody, his

petition has been rendered moot, unless an exception to the mootness doctrine
applies.

Neither of the two exceptions to the mootness doctrine, collateral

consequences and“capable of repetition yet evading review,” Carafas v. LaVallee,
391 U.S. 234, 237, 88 S. Ct. 1556, 1559 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478,
482, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 1183-84 (1982), apply here.

There are no collateral

consequences because there are no “disabilities or burdens which may flow” from
the custody that Arguelles-Sanguineti challenges. See Carafas, 391 U.S. at 237, 88
S. Ct. at 1559. The “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception also does
not apply because of Petitioner’s release from custody, and the potential
circumstances of this case happening again are too speculative to create an actual

2

controversy sufficient to support a claim for relief. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423
U.S. 147, 149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 348-49 (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 the court
can grant Arguelles-Sanguineti, his petition for release is moot.
Based on the foregoing, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, (doc. 9), is
GRANTED. A separate order will be entered.
DONE this 8th day of August, 2014.

________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3