McIntosh v. Lynch et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 3/28/17. (SMH)
FILED
2017 Mar-28 PM 02:36
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
CORNELL MARTIN MCINTOSH,
Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 4:17-cv-00138-AKKJHE
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 26, 2017, Petitioner Cornell Martin McIntosh (“McIntosh”) 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, McIntosh, a native of Grenada, was incarcerated at the
Etowah County Detention Center, in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In his petition, McIntosh alleged that he was being
illegally detained by ICE pending his deportation to Grenada. See generally doc. 1.
On March 21, 2017, McIntosh was released from ICE custody and removed
from the United States to Grenada. Doc. 10, 10-1. Respondents have filed a
motion to dismiss the action as moot, since McIntosh is no longer in ICE custody.
Doc. 10.
After consideration of the record in this case and Respondents’ motion to
dismiss, the court finds that petitioner’s removal to Grenada has rendered his
habeas corpus petition moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir.
2003) (citations omitted); Soliman v. U.S. ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir.
2002). Moreover, the court finds that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply
in this case. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt,
455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982). Therefore, because there is no longer any relief that can
be granted to McIntosh, his petition is due to be dismissed as moot.
DONE the 28th day of March, 2017.
_________________________________
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?