Grullon v. Shockley et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 8/25/10. (apl, Deputy Clerk)

Grullon v. Shockley et al

Doc. 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ELVIS MANUEL GRULLON Petitioner v IRA SHOCKLEY, et al. Respondents * * * * * *** MEMORANDUM Civil Action No. CCB-10-707

Respondents have filed a status report and correspondence regarding the current procedural posture of the above-captioned case. Papers No. 19 and 20. Petitioner was brought before an Immigration Judge on July 28, 2010, and a hearing for bond determination was held. The judge concluded that petitioner is ineligible for bond release as his 20 year criminal history makes him "a threat to the community if released from detention." Paper No. 20. Petitioner reserved appeal, which is due August 27, 2010. Id. Respondents state the matter before the court is now moot given the above disposition. AA habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, ' 2, of the Constitution.@ Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). AThis case-or-controversy requirement subsists

through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.@ Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The parties must continue to have a Apersonal stake in the outcome@ of the lawsuit. Id. at 478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)). AThis means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff >must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.=@ Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). The controversy concerning

Dockets.Justia.com

petitioner's continued confinement remains intact.

The determination of that controversy,

however, is not properly before this court, given the pending administrative appeal and the provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1226(e) prohibiting judicial review of the Attorney General's discretionary judgment regarding bond issues. See also 8 U.S.C. '1252 (reserving appellate review
of removal matters to the applicable Circuit Court of Appeals). Accordingly, the petition shall be

dismissed without prejudice to petitioner's administrative appellate rights. A separate order follows.

August 25, 2010 Date

___________/s/_____________ Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

2