Maldanado Munjialla v. Hassell et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/28/2015. (AVC)

Download PDF
FILED 2015 Aug-28 PM 02:55 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION JOSE ADAN MALDANADO MUNJIALLA, Petitioner, v. SCOTT HASSELL, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 4:15-cv-00488-RDP-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Jose Adan Maldanado Munjialla. (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 27, 2015, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot on the grounds that Petitioner has been removed from the United States. (Doc. # 9). Respondent’s Motion is supported by an attached Declaration of the Supervisory Deportation Officer of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Gadsden, Alabama stating Petitioner was deported on August 21, 2015. (Doc. # 9-1). 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 1 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. # 9) is due to be granted, and this action is due to be dismissed. 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?