Ben-Ari v. Sessions
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 8/30/2017. (PSM)
2017 Aug-30 AM 11:26
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. Attorney General,
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jacob
Ben-Ari, M.D., Ph.D., who is acting pro se. (Doc. 4, Amended Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (hereinafter “Petition” or “Pet.”)). Ben-Ari filed this
action challenging both his continued detention and the propriety of an order of an
Immigration Judge providing for his removal from the United States pursuant to
the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. Ben-Ari has
now filed a “Notice of Change of Address” in which he states that he has “moved”
to Israel. (Doc. 19). The court interprets that notice as showing that Ben-Ari has
been removed from the United States or is otherwise no longer in custody. As
such, this court can no longer provide meaningful relief as it pertains to Ben-Ari’s
habeas corpus petition, rendering it subject to dismissal as moot. See Nyaga v.
Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003); Soliman v. United States ex rel. INS,
296 F.3d 1237, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2002). Likewise, to the extent that Ben-Ari’s
petition would also seek to contest his removal order, this court lacks jurisdiction
over such claims, calling for their dismissal as well. See 8 U.S.C. §§
1252(a)(2)(B), (a)(5), and (b)(9); Linares v. Department of Homeland Sec., 529 F.
App’x 983, 984 (11th Cir. 2013); Mata v. Secretary of Dept. of Homeland Sec.,
426 F. App’x 698, 700 (11th Cir. 2011); Ivantchouk v. United States Atty. Gen.,
417 F. App’x 918, 921-22 (11th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, this action is due to be
dismissed in its entirety. A separate final order will be entered.
Done this 30th day of August 2017.
L. Scott Coogler
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?