Diallo v. Sessions et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 6/13/18. (SAC )
2018 Jun-13 PM 04:37
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SHERIFF TODD ENTREKIN, 1
Case No.: 4:17-cv-01594-KOB-HNJ
This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed by Petitioner Khassim
Diallo, pro se.
Petitioner challenges the legality of his continued detention by federal
immigration authorities pending his removal from the United States under the Immigration and
Nationality Act. (See Doc.1). Respondent has moved to dismiss the action as moot, on the
ground that Petitioner has been removed from the United States. (Doc. 14).
Respondent supports the motion with the declaration of Supervisory Detention and
Deportation Officer Bryan Pittman, who attests that the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) removed Petitioner from the United States on February 28, 2018. (Doc. 91 at 1). Pittman attaches an EADM document from the official ICE database as proof thereof.
(Id. at 2). As a result, Petitioner’s habeas corpus claim for release under an order of supervision
or for repatriation is moot because the court can no longer provide meaningful relief. See Nyaga
v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003). Respondent’s motion is due to be granted and
this action is due to be dismissed.
Although Petitioner names Jefferson B. Sessions, III., John F. Kelly, and George H. Wind, III., as Respondents, the
immediate custodian at the time the petition is filed is the proper defendant in a habeas corpus action filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 2242. The Clerk is DIRECTED to change the style of the case to reflect that Entrekin is the sole
The court will enter a separate Final Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2018.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF 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?