Aden v. Hassell et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 9/28/2015. (AVC)

Download PDF
FILED 2015 Sep-28 AM 11:11 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION BASHIR MOHAMED ADEN, Petitioner, v. SCOTT HASSELL, et al. Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 4:15-cv-00862-AKK-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which Bashir Mohamed Aden, 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). The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this action as moot on the grounds the petitioner was released from the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on September 22, 2015, pursuant to an order of supervision. Doc. 7. The respondents’ 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 on September 22, 2015, the petitioner was released pursuant to an order of supervision. Doc. 7-1. 1 In light of the petitioner’s release on an order of supervision, 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); 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. 7, is due to be GRANTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, doc. 1, is due to be DISMISSED as MOOT. A separate order will be entered. DONE the 28th day of September, 2015. _________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON 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?