Mendoza-Bolano v. U.S. Attorney General of America
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 3/20/2018. (KAM)
FILED
2018 Mar-20 PM 04:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
ROLANDO MENDOZA-BOLANO,
Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Number:
4:17-cv-02036-VEH-JHE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On or about November 28, 2017, Petitioner Rolando Mendoza-Bolano
(“Mendoza-Bolano”) 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, Mendoza-Bolano, a
native of Cuba, was incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center, in the
custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In his
petition, Mendoza-Bolano alleged that he was being illegally detained by ICE
pending his deportation to Cuba. On February 14, 2018, Mendoza-Bolano was
released from ICE custody pursuant to an Order of Supervision. (Docs. 9, 9-1, 10,
10-1).
Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot, since
Mendoza-Bolano is no longer in ICE custody. (Docs. 9 & 10). For the reasons
stated below, Respondent’s motion will be granted and the action be 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).
Mendoza-Bolano’s release from ICE
custody rendered his petition moot.
The relief sought by Mendoza-Bolano in his petition is to be released from
ICE custody. Because Mendoza-Bolano is no longer in ICE custody, his petition
has been rendered 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 Mendoza-Bolano
challenges. See Carafas, 391 U.S. at 237. The exception for events “capable of
repetition, yet evading review” does not apply here either. Petitioner has been
released from 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 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.). Because there is no longer
any relief that can be granted to Mendoza-Bolano, his petition is due to be
dismissed as moot.
Based on the foregoing, the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (docs. 9 & 10),
is GRANTED. A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2018.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
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?