Ferias v. Lynch et al

Filing 15

ORDER OF DISMISSAL granting 10 Motion to dismiss for mootness; dismissing as moot 1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/3/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ADRIANA FERIAS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-811-FtM-99MRM

LORETTA
LYNCH,
Attorney
General,
MARK
J.
MOORE,
Field
Officer
Director
Enforcement, JEH JOHNSON,
Secretary of Department of
Homeland Security, and JUAN
MORENO, Officer in Charge
Glades Miami Office,
Respondents.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner

Adriana

Ferias

(“Petitioner”),

a

native

and

citizen of Venezuela, filed this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1, filed November 4,
2016).

At the time she filed her petition, Petitioner was detained

at the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida,
pending deportation under a final order of removal. Id. at ¶ 17.
Respondents

filed

a

motion

to

dismiss

mootness (Doc. 10, filed January 30, 2017).

the

petition

for

In their motion,

Respondents assert that Petitioner is no longer in the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) because she has been
released under an order of supervision. Id. at ¶ 1.

Petitioner

has not responded to Respondents’ motion, and the time to do so
has passed.

Accordingly, the motion is ripe for review.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that
this action must be dismissed as moot.
I.
On

September

11,

BACKGROUND

2015,

an

immigration

judge

ordered

Petitioner deported on the ground that she had been convicted of
a removable offense under INA §§ 237 or 212 (Doc. 1 at ¶ 15).
Petitioner’s appeal was denied, and the removal order became final
on February 17, 2016. Id. at ¶ 16.

In her § 2241 petition for

habeas relief, Petitioner seeks release from ICE custody on the
ground

that

the

length

of

her

current

detention

has

been

unreasonably long under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701
(2001). Id. at ¶ 27.
In response to this Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 9),
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition
as moot (Doc. 10).

Respondents urge that Petitioner challenges

only her continued detention, and “[w]hen a habeas proceeding
challenges the length of confinement as opposed to the underlying
conviction and the petitioner is released, the petition should be
dismissed as moot.” Id. at 1-2.

To their motion, Respondents

attach a Release Notification and Order of Supervision showing
that Petitioner was released from ICE custody on January 30, 2017

- 2 -

and is allowed to remain at large pending deportation (Doc. 101).
II.

DISCUSSION

“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer
live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.”

Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335–36 (11th

Cir. 2001)(internal punctuation omitted).

“If events that occur

subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the
court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful
relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed.” Id. at 1336.
However,

dismissal

after

petition

continues

to

release

present

a

is

not

live

automatic;

controversy

a

habeas

after

the

petitioner’s release or deportation when there is some remaining
“collateral consequence” that may be redressed by success on the
petition. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998)(“Once the
convict’s

sentence

has

continuing

injury

other

expired,
than

the

however,

some

now-ended

concrete

incarceration

and
or

parole—some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction—must exist
if the suit is to be maintained.”); Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S.
47, 52 n.2 (2006) (case not mooted by petitioner’s deportation
because

the

petitioner

could

still

benefit

application for cancellation of removal).

by

pursuing

his

This exception to the

mootness doctrine applies when: (1) the challenged action is too
short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or

- 3 -

expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the
same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.
Weinstein

v.

Bradford,

423

U.S.

147,

149

(1975);

Carafas

v.

LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478,
482 (1982).
In

the

instant

case,

Petitioner

challenges

her

extended

detention and seeks only release from ICE custody (Doc. 1 at 7).
She

does

Therefore,

not

challenge

Petitioner’s

the
claim

underlying
was

order

resolved

by

of

removal.

her

release.

Because Petitioner was released pending removal, the chances of
her extended detention happening again are too speculative to
create a controversy sufficient to support a claim for relief, and
the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply.

See Ijaoba

v. Holder, Case No. 4:12-cv-3792-JHH-RRA, 2013 WL 1490927, at *1
(N.D. Ala. 2013) (“Since the petitioner has been released pending
his

deportation

to

Nigeria,

the

circumstances

of

this

case

happening again are too speculative to create an actual controversy
sufficient to support a claim for relief.”).
III. CONCLUSION
Since the Court can no longer give Petitioner any meaningful
relief, her § 2241 petition is moot and “dismissal is required
because mootness is jurisdictional.”

Al Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336,

1253; Riley v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2002) (release
from detention under an order of supervision moots a petitioner’s

- 4 -

challenge to the legality of his extended detention); Nunes v.
Decker, 480 F. App’x 173, 175 (3d Cir. 2012) (release of alien
under

order

of

supervision

who

challenged

only

his

extended

detention mooted § 2241 habeas petition because the alien “achieved
the result he sought in his habeas petition”); see also Hernandez–
Gonzalez

v.

Holder,

Case

No.

2:13-cv-190-FtM-29DNF,

2013

WL

1729005, * 1–2 (M.D. Fla. 2013).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1.
GRANTED.

Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (Doc. 10) is
The 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus

(Doc. 1) is dismissed as moot.
2.

The

Clerk

of

Court

is

directed

to

enter

judgment

accordingly and to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this
of April, 2017.

SA: OrlP-4
Copies: All Parties of Record

- 5 -

3rd

day