Saldana Chacon v. Lynch et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The Court GRANTS 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Warden of Pulaski County Detention Center. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/14/16. (lmp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MORRIS ENRIQUE SALDANA
Civil No. 16-cv-236-DRH-CJP
WARDEN of PULASKI COUNTY
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Petitioner Morris Enrique Saldana Chacon filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 challenging his detention by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Now before the Court is respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Based on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 23).
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
According to respondent, petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador
who does not have legal status in the United States.
ICE initiated removal
proceedings and petitioner was ordered removed as inadmissible. The order of
removal became final in April 2015.
ICE was, for some period of time, unable to
secure a travel document because petitioner refused to cooperate with the El
Salvadorian Consulate by declining to provide the information needed to obtain a
travel document. See, Doc. 11.
Page 1 of 3
The §2241 petition asserts that petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful
because he has been detained longer than the presumptively reasonable period of
six months set by Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001). The relief sought is
release from custody.
ICE has now procured the necessary travel document, and, on September
30, 2016, petitioner was removed from the United States to El Salvador. See,
Executed Warrant of Removal/Deportation, attached to Doc. 23 as Exhibit 1.
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
“The inability to review moot cases stems from the requirement of Article III
Page 2 of 3
of the Constitution which limits the exercise of judicial power to live cases or
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787, 790 (7th Cir. 2004). The Seventh
Circuit directs a federal court to “dismiss a case as moot when it cannot give the
petitioner any effective relief.” Ibid. That is the situation here. According to the
executed Warrant of Removal/Deportation, petitioner has been removed to El
Salvador. Petitioner has received the relief sought, i.e., release from ICE custody.
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 14th day of October, 2016.
Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 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?