VAZQUEZ CRUZ v. GREEN
OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 2/8/17. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RICARDO VAZQUEZ CRUZ,
Civil Action No. 16-3451 (JMV)
Victor M. Urbaez, Esq.
91 Passaic Street
Garfield, NJ 07026
on behalf of Petitioner
Hans H. Chen
United States Justice Department, Civil Division
Office of Immigration Litigation
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
on behalf of Respondent
VAZQUEZ, United States District Judge
On June 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (ECF No. 1), challenging his prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”). On February 3, 2017, Respondent submitted a letter to the Court stating
that Petitioner was removed from the United States on November 9, 2016, as established by
Petitioner’s Form I-205. (ECF Nos. 18, 19.) Respondent contends the habeas petition is moot.
(ECF No. 18 at 1.)
A habeas petition “generally becomes moot when [a petitioner] is released from custody”
because there is no longer “an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed
by a favorable judicial decision.” Vasquez v. Aviles, 639 F. App’x 898, 902 (3d Cir. 2016)
(quoting DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 2005)). The present petition no longer
presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution because
Petitioner is no longer detained by ICE. See id. (finding petition moot where there were no
collateral consequences that could be addressed by success on the petition after removal) (citing
Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007)). Therefore, the petition is dismissed as
An appropriate Order follows.
Date: February, 2017
At Newark, New Jersey
s/ John Michael Vazquez
JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ
United States District Judge
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?