Akpore v. Hassell et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/6/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Dec-06 AM 10:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
FRANCIS OKIEMUTE AKPORE,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT HASSELL, et al.,
Respondents.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 4:18-cv-0290-MHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 22, 2018, petitioner Francis Akpore filed a Motion for Hearing
in which he asked the Court to direct the respondents to “immediately return” him
to the United States from Nigeria. (Doc. 18 at 4). On November 15, 2018, the
respondents moved to dismiss Mr. Akpore’s habeas petition. The respondents
argue that Mr. Akpore’s habeas petition is moot because Mr. Akpore has been
removed from the United States. (Doc. 19; Doc. 19-1, Pitman Decl. (stating that
Mr. Akpore was removed from the United States to Nigeria on August 14, 2018)). 1
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.,
1

In his Motion for Hearing, which was mailed from Nigeria on September 25, 2018, Mr. Akpore
confirms that he has been deported to Nigeria. (See Doc. 18 at 3-5).

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). Because Mr. Akpore has been removed
from the United States to Nigeria, this Court no longer may provide meaningful
relief. Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Akpore’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is
moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action and will deny Mr. Akpore’s
“Motion for Hearing” as moot. 2
A separate order will be entered.
The parties shall bear their respective costs.
DONE this 6th day of December, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

To the extent that Mr. Akpore contends that the respondents removed him from the United
States without a valid order, misrepresented his immigration status, and confiscated his valid
Nigerian passport (Doc. 20, ¶ 1), this Court is without jurisdiction to address these matters
because Mr. Akpore no longer is in ICE custody. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)
(concluding “that § 2241 habeas corpus proceedings remain available as a forum for statutory
and constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention”). The finding that this Court
may not provide relief in this habeas proceeding does not limit Mr. Akpore’s ability to seek in
other court proceedings redress for his contention that his removal was improper.
2