Jimenez v. Avilez

Filing 14

OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 3/22/17. (cm, )

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ____________________________________ : FELIPE MIGUEL JIMENEZ, : : Civil Action No. 17-872 (JMV) Petitioner, : : v. : OPINION : TISH CASTILLO, : : Respondent. : ____________________________________: VAZQUEZ, United States District Judge On January 31, 2017, the United States District Court, Southern District of New York transferred to this Court Felipe Jimenez’s 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”). This Court ordered Respondent to answer the petition. (ECF No. 6.) Respondent submitted an I-205 form, showing that Petitioner was removed from the United States on February 21, 2017. (ECF No. 8-1.) Respondent contends the habeas petition is moot. (ECF No. 8.) 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 1 Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007)). Therefore, the petition is dismissed as moot. An appropriate Order follows. Date: March 22, 2017 At Newark, New Jersey s/ John Michael Vazquez JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ United States District Judge 2

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?