Ahmed v. Lynch et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 12/14/16. (SAC )
2016 Dec-14 AM 10:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LORETTA LYNCH, et al.,
Case No.: 4:16-cv-01324-KOB-SGC
This matter is before the court on Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss as Moot filed December
12, 2016. (Doc. 6). In their motion, Respondents include the affidavit of Bryan Pitman, with the
Department of Homeland Security, indicating that ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
removed Petitioner from the United States to Bangladesh on December 6, 2016. (Doc. 6-1).
Respondents argue that, because ICE removed Petitioner from the United States and is no longer in
ICE custody, this case is due to be dismissed as moot.
On August 15, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking an
immediate release from ICE custody. (Doc 1). Because Petitioner has been removed from the
United States and is no longer in ICE custody, the court can no longer provide meaningful relief and
finds that the petition for 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, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998) (once a habeas petitioner is released from
custody, he must demonstrate collateral consequences to avoid mootness doctrine).
Accordingly, the court finds that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine exist; that the
motion to dismiss is due to be granted; and that the habeas petition is due to be dismissed as moot.
See Khader v. Holder, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (N.D. Ala. 2011).
The court will enter a separate Order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion..
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2016.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF 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?