Orellana Brito v. Chief Director of the Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 23 Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/13/16. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAIME LEONEL ORELLANA BRITO,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 15-cv-820-DRH-CJP

vs.

WARDEN of TRI-COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is now before the Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss
petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 23).
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
Jaime Leonel Orellana Brito filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 challenging his detention by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to respondent, petitioner is a native and
citizen of Honduras who entered the United States illegally around 2004. ICE
took him into custody in August 2014 and initiated removal proceedings. A final
order of removal was entered on May 7, 2015. Doc. 18, pp. 1-2, and exhibits
referred to therein.
The §2241 petition asserts that petitioner was held in ICE custody while
ICE attempted to procure a travel document from Honduras so that petitioner
could be removed to that country. Petitioner asserts that his continued detention

1

by ICE is unlawful under Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001).
Respondent moves to dismiss because petitioner has now been released
from custody. On December 29, 2015, petitioner was removed to Honduras. See,
Declaration of Supervisory Deportation Officer, Doc. 23, Ex. 1.
Analysis
A petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 is the appropriate vehicle for challenging
the length of detention pending removal. Zadvydas, 121 S. Ct. at 2497-2498.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a writ of habeas corpus “shall not extend to a
prisoner” unless he is “in custody.” The “in custody” requirement is satisfied if
the petitioner was in custody at the time of the filing of the petition. Spencer v.
Kemna, 118 S. Ct. 978, 983 (1998). Therefore, a detainee who is released while
his petition for writ of habeas corpus is pending meets the “in custody”
requirement; his release does not necessarily render his petition moot.
However, the petition must still present a “case or controversy” under
Article III, § 2 of the Constitution. That is, the petitioner “must have suffered, or
be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the [respondent] and likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spencer, 118 S. Ct. at 983 (internal
citation omitted).
The Seventh Circuit directs a federal court to “dismiss a case as moot when
it cannot give the petitioner any effective relief.” A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787, 790
(7th Cir. 2004).

That is the situation here.

The petition did not contest the

legality of the underlying removal order. Petitioner has received the relief sought,

2

i.e., release from ICE custody.
Conclusion
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 (Doc. 1)
is moot. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
Date: 2016.04.13
05:44:48 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 13, 2016

United States District Court

3