Amarame v. Holder

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 4/15/15. (SAC )

Download PDF
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?