MORALES-GODOY v. GREEN

Filing 6

OPINION. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 10/4/2016. (ld, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOHNNY MORALES-GODOY,
Petitioner,

Civ. No. 16-4235 (KM)

V.

CFIARLES GREEN,

OPINION

Respondent.

KEVIN MCNULTY. U.S.D.J.
I.

INTRODUCTION

Until August 25, 2016, the petitioner, Johnny Morales-Godoy, was an immigration
detainee lodged at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey. Mr. Morales
Godoy is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

2241. The habeas petition will be denied as moot.
II.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Morales-Godoy is a native and citizen of Guatemala. He was previously removed
from the United States pursuant to an order of removal in February, 2007. He then illegally re
entered the United States in May, 2007. Mr. Morales-Godoy was placed in immigration
detention on November 27, 2015. On November 28, 2015, a notice of intent/decision to reinstate
the previous order of removal against him was then issued by the Department of Homeland
Security.
On June 20, 2016, an Immigration Judge granted Mr. Morales-Godoy withholding of
removal under the Convention Against Torture. However, he was not released from immigration

detention at that time as U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (“ICE”) initially reserved
appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision.
Subsequently, Mr. Morales-Godoy filed this federal habeas petition in July 2016. 1-le
claims that his immigration detention has become so prolonged so as to violate Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The petition seeks his release from immigration detention, or in the
alternative, asks that a bond hearing take place before an Immigration Judge.
On August 30, 2016, respondent filed a response to the habeas petition. Respondent
explains and provides documentation that an Immigration Judge granted Mr. Morales-Godoy
withholding of removal on June 20, 2016. ICE initially reserved appeal, but then decided not to
appeal, and Mr. Morales-Godoy was released from immigration detention on an order of
supervision on August 25, 2016. Respondent argues that this release from immigration detention
moots this federal habeas petition.
III.

DISCUSSION

As a general matter, in Zathydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the United States
Supreme Court held that

§

123 1(a)(6) “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a
1

period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States. It does
not permit indefinite detention.” 533 U.S. at 689. To state a habeas claim under

§ 2241, the

Section 123 l(a)(6) states as follows:
An alien ordered removed who is inadmissible under Section 1182
of this title, removable under section 1227(a)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2), or
1227(a)(4) of this title who has been determined by the Attorney
General to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with
the order of removal, may be detained beyond the removal period,
and if released, shall be subject to the terms of supervision in
paragraph (3).
8 U.S.C.

§

123 1(a)(6).

2

petitioner must provide facts showing good reason to believe that there is no reasonable
likelihood of his actual removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at
701.
Mr. Morales-Godoy is no longer in immigration detention. Thus, he has received the
relief he seeks in his habeas petition. There is no reason to think that he will be placed in
immigration detention again unless he violates the conditions of his supervision, a speculative
state of affairs and one within Mr. Morales-Godoy’s control. Accordingly, his habeas petition
seeking his release from immigration detention is moot as he “has achieved the result he sought
in his habeas petition and his change in circumstances has ‘forestalled any occasion for
meaningful relief.” Nunes v. Decker, 480 F. App’x 173, 175 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Artway v.
Atty Gen., 81 F.3d 1235, 1246 (3d Cir. 1996)) (other citation omitted); see also Dubois v. Hen
dricks, No. 14—3861, 2014 WL 4105482, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2014) (dismissing habeas
petition raising Zadvydas claim as moot where petitioner was released from immigration
detention pursuant to an order of supervision); Rojas v. Lowe, No. 13—0871, 2013 WL 5876851,
at *3 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 30, 2013) (same).

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the habeas petition will be denied as moot. An appropriate
order will be entered.

DATED: October 4, 2016
I

7

‘i

II’
(I

KEVIN MCNULTY
United States District Judg

3