Muhiyadin v. Hassell

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 3/13/17. (SMH)

FILED
2017 Mar-13 PM 04:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
OMER MUHIYADIN,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY JOHN F. KELLY, et
al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number:
4:17-cv-00315-AKK-JHE

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 27, 2017, Petitioner Omer Muhiyadin (“Muhiyadin”) 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, Muhiyadin, a native of Ethiopia, was incarcerated at the
Etowah County Detention Center, in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In his petition, Muhiyadin alleged that he was
being illegally detained by ICE pending his deportation to Ethiopia. On March 7,
2017, Muhiyadin 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 Muhiyadin is no longer in ICE custody. Doc. 6. For the reasons stated
below, Respondents’ motion will be granted and the action 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). Muhiyadin’s release from ICE custody
rendered his petition moot.
In his petition, Muhiyadin asks the court to release him from ICE custody.
Because Muhiyadin is no longer in ICE custody, his petition is 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 Muhiyadin challenges. See
Carafas, 391 U.S. at 237. The exception for events “capable of repetition, yet
evading review” does not apply here either. Petitioner 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
2

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.). In light of the fact that there is no relief that the court can
grant Muhiyadin, his petition is moot.
Based on the foregoing, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, doc. 6, is
GRANTED. A separate order will be entered.
DONE the 13th day of March, 2017.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3