Martinez v. Hassell et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION that 10 Motion to Dismiss is due to be granted, and this action is due to be dismissed. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 8/21/2015. Copy served on petitioner on this date. (YMB)
2015 Aug-21 AM 10:17
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SCOTT HASSELL, et al.,
) Case No.: 4:14-cv-01004-AKK-SGC
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) in which the petitioner, Fernando Martinez, proceeding pro
se, has sought to challenge his continued detention pending removal pursuant to
the Immigration and Nationality Act. See generally, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678 (2001). On August 18, 2015, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss this
action as moot on the grounds the petitioner has been removed from the United
States. (Doc. 10). The motion is supported by an attached declaration of the
Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer of the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement facility in Gadsden, Alabama, stating that the petitioner was
deported to El Salvador on July 31, 2015. (Doc. 10-1).
Because the petitioner has been removed, the court can no longer provide
meaningful relief, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot. See Nyaga
v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[A] case must be dismissed as
moot if the court can no longer provide ‘meaningful relief.’”); see also Spencer v.
Kemna, 423 U.S. 1, 8 (1998) (once habeas petitioner is released from custody, he
must demonstrate collateral consequences to avoid mootness doctrine).
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is due to be GRANTED, and this
action is due to be DISMISSED. A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE the 21st 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?