Sina v. US Attorney General of America
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 7/13/2018. (TLM, )
FILED
2018 Jul-13 PM 03:46
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
TAKIYUDEEN SINA,
Petitioner,
v.
US ATTORNEY GENERAL OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 4:18-cv-00441-ACA-JHE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 21, 2018, Petitioner Takiyudeen Sina (“Sina”) 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, Sina, a native of Ghana, was incarcerated at the Etowah County
Detention Center, in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”). In his petition, Sina alleged that he was being illegally
detained by ICE pending his deportation to Ghana. On June 19, 2018, Sina was
deported from the United States. (Doc. 13, 13-1). Respondents have filed a motion
to dismiss the action as moot, since Sina is no longer in ICE custody. (Doc. 13).
For the reasons stated below, Respondents’ motion will be granted and the action
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). The relief sought by Sina in his petition is
to be released from ICE custody. Sina’s release from ICE custody rendered his
petition moot.
Because Sina 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 Sina 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 particular 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
2
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 Sina’s petition does not fall within either exception,
his petition is due to be dismissed as moot.
Based on the foregoing, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, (doc. 13), is
GRANTED. A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this July 13, 2018.
_________________________________
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?