Mejia-Chavez v. Hassell et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION that the motion to dismiss is due to be GRANTED and this action is due to be Dismissed a separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 9/29/2015. (AHI)
2015 Sep-29 AM 10:56
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SCOTT HASSELL, et al.,
Case No.: 4:15-cv-00680-CLS-SGC
This case is before the court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (doc. no. 1) in which the petitioner, Nelson MejiaChavez, 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 17, 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. no. 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. no.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. no.10) is due to be GRANTED, and this action is due to be
DISMISSED. A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 29th day of October, 2015.
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?