Karim v. Lynch et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 8/10/2017. (JLC)
2017 Aug-10 AM 11:10
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JEFF. B. SESSIONS, et al.,
Case Number: 4:17-cv-00122-VEH-JHE
On January 24, 2017, Petitioner Karim Bidiga (“Bidiga”) 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, Bidiga,
a native of Burkina Faso, was incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center, in the
custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In his petition, Bidiga
alleged that he was being illegally detained by ICE pending his deportation to Burkina Faso. On
June 7, 2017, Bidiga was deported to Burkina Faso. (Doc. 11-1). Respondents have filed a
motion to dismiss the action as moot, since Bidiga is no longer in ICE custody. (Doc. 11). For
the reasons stated below, Respondents’ motion will be granted and the action be dismissed as
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). Bidiga’s release from ICE
custody rendered his petition moot.
The relief sought by Bidiga in his petition is to be released from ICE custody. Because
Bidiga 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 Bidiga 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 deported and is no longer in 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 Bidiga, his petition is due to
be dismissed as moot.
Additionally, the petitioner’s name is Karim Bidiga, not Bidiga Karim as listed on the
docket sheet. The Clerk is DIRECTED to correct the petitioner’s name on the docket sheet.
Based on the foregoing, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, (doc. 11), is GRANTED.
A separate order will be entered.
DONE this 10th day of August, 2017.
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?