Said v. Hassell, et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 8/4/2015. (JLC)
2015 Aug-04 AM 11:42
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SCOTT HASSELL, et al.,
Case No.: 4:15-CV-0879-VEH-JHE
On May 28, 2015, Petitioner Ibrahim Said (“Said”) filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). At the time he filed his
petition, Said, a native of Somalia, was incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention
Center, in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”). In his petition, Said alleged that he was being illegally detained by ICE
pending his deportation to Somalia. On July 31, 2015, Said was released from ICE
custody pursuant to an Order of Supervision. (Doc. 6, 6-1). Respondents have filed
a motion to dismiss the action as moot, since Said is no longer in ICE custody. (Doc.
6). For the reasons stated below, Respondents’ motion will be granted and the action
be dismissed as moot.
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the
consideration of “cases or controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. The doctrine of
mootness is derived from this limitation because “an action that is moot cannot be
characterized as an active case or controversy.” Adler v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 112
F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). A case is moot and must be dismissed if the court
can no longer provide “meaningful relief.” Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913
(11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Said’s release from ICE custody rendered his
The relief sought by Said in his petition is to be released from ICE custody.
Because Said is no longer in ICE custody, his petition has been rendered moot, unless
an exception to the mootness doctrine applies. There are two exceptions to the
mootness doctrine: (1) collateral consequences and (2) “capable of repetition yet
evading review.” Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt,
455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982).
Neither exception applies here.
consequences exception does not apply because there are no “disabilities or burdens
which may flow” from the custody that Said challenges. See Carafas, 391 U.S. at
237. The exception for events “capable of repetition, yet evading review” does not
apply here either. Petitioner has been released from custody, and the potential
circumstances of this case happening again are too speculative to create an actual
controversy sufficient to support a claim for relief. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423
U.S. 147, 149 (1975) (holding that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review”
exception applies when (1) the challenged action is too short in duration to be fully
litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation
that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.).
Because there is no longer any relief that can be granted to Said, his petition is due
to be dismissed as moot.
Based on the foregoing, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, (doc. 6), is
GRANTED. A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this the 4th day of August, 2015.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
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?