Garcia v. Holder et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/28/2015. (AVC)
FILED
2015 Aug-28 PM 03:45
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
ADONAY GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: Case 4:14-cv-01138-RDP-JHE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 by Adonay Garcia. (Doc. # 1). Petitioner challenges his continued detention pending
removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. See generally, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
U.S. 678 (2001). On August 28, 2015, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot
on the grounds that Petitioner has been removed from the United States.
(Doc. # 17).
Respondent’s Motion is supported by an attached Declaration of the Acting Supervisory
Detention and Deportation Officer of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in
Gadsden, Alabama stating Petitioner was deported on July 15, 2015. (Doc. # 17-1).
Because 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, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998) (once habeas petitioner is
released from custody, he must demonstrate collateral consequences to avoid mootness doctrine).
Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) is due to be granted, and this action is
due to be dismissed.
1
A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this August 28, 2015.
_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?