MANOACH v. AVILES et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 07/19/2011. (nr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DEPRINVIL MANOACH.
Civil No. 11-2619 (SRC)
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
OSCAR AVILES, et aL,
Respondents.
It appearing that:
1. On May 11, 2011, Petitioner tiled a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 challenging his post-removal-period detention at Hudson County Correctional
Center by the Department of Homeland Security.
.cc
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Petitioner contends that his detention is no longer statutorily authorized because his removal is
not reasonably foreseeable.
2. On June 30, 2011, Respondents filed an Answer.
3. On July 14, 2011, Respondents filed a letter informing the Court that on July 12, 201 1,
the Department of Homeland Security effectuated Petitioner’s removal to Haiti. The letter was
accompanied by a document verifring Petitioner’s departure. (Docket Entry No. 11-i.)
Respondents ask this Court to dismiss the Petition as moot,
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant Petition because Petitioner
was detained at a jail in New Jersey at the time he filed his Petition. See Spencer v. Kna, 523
U.S. 1. 7(1998): Chong v. Dist. Dir.. INS. 264 F.3d 378. 382-83 (3d Cir. 2001).
____
5. Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of federal courts to “cases or
controversies” between parties. U.S. C0NsT. art. Ill.
§
2. “The exercise ofjudicial power under
Art. Ill of the Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy.” and “a federal
court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.” U.S. NatI Bank of Oregon v. Independent
Ins. Agents of America. Inc., 508 U.S. 439. 445 (1993
) (quoting Preiser v.
Newkirk, 422 U.S.
395, 401 (1975). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal
judicial proceedings.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). “This
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.
6. In this case, Petitioner challenges his post-removal-period detention as not authorized
by 8 U.S.C.
§
1231 (a)(6), as construed by Zadvydas, and in violation of due process because his
removal is not reasonably foreseeable. When the government removed him to Haiti on July 12,
2011, the Petition became moot because Petitioner was no longer 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; Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982).
7. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
I
STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
DATED
/)
2011
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?