Amarame v. Holder
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 4/15/15. (SAC )
FILED
2015 Apr-15 PM 02:18
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME,
Petitioner,
vs.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:14-cv-00685-KOB-TMP
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the “Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Petition as Moot” (doc. 11) and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
entered on February 26, 2015 (doc. 13). The magistrate judge recommends that the
court dismiss as moot Amarame’s habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 because he is no longer in ICE custody, and the court can grant him no further
relief. (Doc. 13). Neither party has filed any objections.
The court has carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in
the court file, including the report and recommendation. The court ADOPTS the
magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation to grant the
Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition as moot. The court finds
that, because ICE released Amarame on an order of supervision on December 30,
2014, his petition is moot because the court can no longer provide “meaningful
relief.” See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003). The court further
finds that no exception to the mootness doctrine applies in this case. See Carafas v.
LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982).
Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is due to be DISMISSED as MOOT.
The court will enter a separate, final Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of April, 2015.
____________________________________
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?