Emiola v. Lynch et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 10/5/2017. (PSM)

FILED
2017 Oct-05 PM 12:57
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
AJIJOLA MOSHOOD EMIOLA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFF B. SESSIONS, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 4:16-cv-00647-LSC-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 22, 2016, Petitioner Ajijola Moshood Emiola (“Emiola”) 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,
Emiola, a native of Nigeria, was incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center, in the
custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In his petition,
Emiola alleged that he was being illegally detained by ICE pending his deportation to Nigeria.
On August 29, 2017, Emiola was removed from the United States to Nigeria. (Doc. 12, 12-1).
Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot, since Emiola is no longer in ICE
custody. (Doc. 12). 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). Emiola’s deportation rendered
his petition moot.
The relief sought by Emiola in his petition is to be released from ICE custody. Because
Emiola 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.
The collateral consequences exception does not apply because there are no “disabilities or
burdens which may flow” from the custody that Emiola 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 Emiola, his petition is due to be
dismissed as moot.
Based on the foregoing, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, (doc. 12), is GRANTED.
A separate order will be entered.

2

DONE and ORDERED on October 5, 2017.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704

3