MOWATT v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE re 1 Complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 3/11/2025. (esl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
DEVON ANTHONY MOWATT,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
V.
:
:
DEPARTMENT OF
:
HOMELAND SECURITY,
:
:
Defendant.
:
_________________________________:

NO. 4:25-cv-00072-CDL-AGH

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Devon Anthony Mowatt has filed a pro se complaint citing 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in this action
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Jamaica, who is
currently in custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin,
Georgia. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff asserts that his “continued detention” violates his due
process rights. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that he has been unlawfully imprisoned,
that the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was defective, that his DNA was used without his
consent in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that there was an unspecified violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Plaintiff names only DHS as a defendant in this
action. Id.
Page 1 of 3

Thus, although Plaintiff cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a review of Plaintiff’s complaint
shows that he is challenging the fact of his current detention, rather than the conditions of
his confinement. Generally, a habeas corpus petition is the appropriate vehicle for an
individual to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. 1 See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Moreover, Plaintiff already has a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pending in this Court in relation to this same detention. See
Mowatt v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Case No. 4:25-cv-00034-CDL-AGH. In that case,
Plaintiff has also raised claims relating to the validity of his NTA and purported Fourteenth
Amendment violations. Thus, this action is duplicative of Plaintiff’s pending case.
“As part of its general power to administer its docket, a district court may stay or
dismiss a suit that is duplicative” of one already pending in federal court. Curtis v.
Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000). “[A] suit is duplicative of another suit
if the parties, issues, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two
actions.” IA. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986).
Because the pleadings in these cases challenge the same detention and raise similar
issues, the present action is duplicative of one already pending in this Court. Therefore,
this case is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the pending motion to

There are limitations on this Court’s ability to review a detainee’s claims relating to the
validity of his detention or removal proceedings. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9).
Because this case is appropriately dismissed as duplicative, as discussed herein, the extent
of those limitations and whether Plaintiff may raise his claims in this Court are not
addressed in this order.
1

Page 2 of 3

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. 2 See Curtis, 226 F.3d at 138.
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of March, 2025.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

In Mowatt, Case No. 4:25-cv-00034-CDL-AGH, Plaintiff has been ordered to amend his
pending petition. Therefore, he may raise any additional claims relating to the propriety
of his detention in his amended petition in that case.

2

Page 3 of 3