ESTRADA-CRUZ v. RODRIGUEZ
OPINION. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 07/17/2017. (ek)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 17-0937 (KM)
WARDEN ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ,
KEVIN MCNULTY. U.S.D.J.
The petitioner, Denis Estrada-Cruz, was an immigration detainee when he filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2241 through counsel. The petition challenges
his immigration detention and seeks his release or that a bond hearing he ordered. As of April 28,
2017, the petitioner was deported. He is no Longer in immigration detention. Therefore, the
habeas petition will be denied as moot.
Mr. Estrada-Cruz is a native and citizen of Honduras. He entered the United States on
May 5,2006. On Aprii 18, 2016. Mr. Estrada-Cruz was placed in immigration detention.
On December 13, 2016, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Mr. Estrada-Cruz removed
to Honduras. On April 12, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed his
Mr. Estrada-Cruz’s immigration proceedings were ongoing when he filed this counseled
habeas petition in this Court in February, 2017. The petition requests his release from
immigration detention or that a bond hearing be ordered.
The government filed a response to the habeas petition on April 12, 2017. In that
response, the government stated that it did not object to this Court ordering a bond hearing.
However, as indicated above, on the same day that the government filed its response to the
habeas petition, the BIA dismissed Mr. Estrada-Cruz’s appeal.
On July 13, 2017, the government submitted a supplemental letter to this Court. That
letter states that the habeas petition should now be denied as moot because Mr. Estrada-Cruz was
removed from the United States on April 28, 2017.
As a general matter, in Zadvydas 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
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
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
Mr. Estrada-Cruz is no longer in immigration detention; he was removed from the United
States on April 28, 2017. The government has included a declaration from a deportation officer
to indicate Mr. Estrada-Cruz’s removal. (See Dkt. No. 7 at p.4) Thus, Mr. Estrada-Cruz has
Section 123 1(a)(6) states as follows:
An alien ordered removed who is inadmissible under Section 1182
of this title, removable under section 1227(a)(l)(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
§ 123 1(a)(6).
received the relief he seeks in his habeas petition; Le., the release from immigration detention.
Because he has been removed from the United States, there is no concrete likelihood of his being
detained again. According, his habeas petition 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
Decker, 480 F. App’x 173, 175 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Artway v.
Att’y Geti.. 81 F.3d 1235, 1246 (3d Cir. 1996)) (other citation omitted); see also Lindaastutv v.
Attorney General of United States, 186 F. App’x 294, 296 (3d Cir. 2006) (habeas petition
challenging immigration detention is moot due to deportation from the United States).
For the foregoing reasons, the habeas petition will be denied as moot. An appropriate
order will be entered.
DATED: July 17, 2017
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?