Okpomo v. Sessions et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 09/29/2017. (KBB)
2017 Sep-29 PM 12:22
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JEFF SESSIONS, ET AL,
On June 15, 2017 Godwin McMukoro Okpomo 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, Okpomo, a native of Nigeria, was incarcerated at the Etowah County
Detention Center, in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”). In his petition, Okpomo alleged that he was being illegally
detained by ICE pending his deportation. On August 29, 2017, Okpomo was
deported from the United States. Doc. 6-1. Respondents have filed a motion to
dismiss the action as moot, since Okpomo is no longer in ICE custody. Doc. 6.
For the reasons stated below, the motion is due to be granted.
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).
The relief sought by Okpomo in his petition is to be released from ICE
custody. Where, as here, Okpomo is no longer in ICE custody, his petition has
been rendered moot, unless an exception to the mootness doctrine applies.
Because neither of the two exceptions to the mootness doctrine, “collateral
consequences” or “capable of repetition yet evading review,” see Carafas v.
LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982),
apply here, there is no longer any relief that the court can grant to Okpomo, and his
petition is due to be dismissed as moot.
Based on the foregoing, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, doc. 6, is
GRANTED. A separate order will be entered.
DONE the 29th day of September, 2017.
ABDUL K. KALLON
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?