Garcia-Martinez v. Holder et al

Filing 8

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP----DECISION AND ORDER granting Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, and the Petition is dismissed. Leave to appeal as a poor person is denied. Petitioner must file a notice of appeal within 60 days of the date of the judgment of this action with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Signed by Hon. John T. Curtin on 12/18/2013. (JEC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MIGUEL M. GARCIA-MARTINEZ, A46-546-950,
Petitioner,
-v-

13-CV-838-JTC
ORDER

ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General
of the United States, et al.,
Respondents.

Petitioner, Miguel M. Garcia-Martinez, A46-546-950, filed a petition for habeas
corpus relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued administrative
detention in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security/Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”) pending removal. Dkt. #1.1 Respondents have filed
a motion to dismiss the petition as moot inasmuch as petitioner’s removal was effected
by DHS/ICE on or about November 19, 2013. Dkt. #6 (Affidavit of Gail Y. Mitchell, Esq.),
¶¶ 2-8.

Respondents’ counsel has submitted a copy of the Warrant of

Removal/Deportation verifying the petitioner’s removal. Id., Exh. A.

1

Because petitioner could not and did not challenge his final order of removal in this Court, a stay of
removal was not entered. See, e.g., Sikder v. Gonzalez, 2006 WL 1149153, at *5 (D. Col. April 28 ,2006)
(“Nevertheless, pursuant to the [REAL ID] Act, this court is without jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s claims
or to grant him the relief he seeks in his motion, such as a stay of the order of removal.”) (Order Affirming and
Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation) (citations omitted); Morillo v. DHS & Bice
Detention Center, 2006 WL 1007645, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. April 17, 2006) (“[m]oreover, to the extent that Petitioner
is only seeking a stay of his removal, this Court would also be without jurisdiction to address this request.”);
Aime v. Department of Homeland Security, 2005 WL 1971894, *1 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2005) (“since petitioner
challenges an order of removal within the meaning of the REAL ID Act, § 106(b) . . . this Court has no
jurisdiction to review the merits of the petition or to stay the order of removal.”).

Accordingly, in light of the fact that petitioner’s removal has been effected and he
no longer is in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, the respondents’
motion to dismiss the petition is granted and the petition is dismissed.
The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from
this judgment would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies leave to appeal as a
poor person. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).
Petitioner must file any notice of appeal with the Clerk's Office, United States District
Court, Western District of New York, within sixty (60) days of the date of judgment in this
action. Requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person must be filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in accordance with the requirements of Rule
24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that the petition is dismissed; and
FURTHER, that leave to appeal as a poor person is denied.

SO ORDERED.
________________\s\ John T. Curtin
__________
JOHN T. CURTIN
United States District Judge
DATED: December 18, 2013
p:\pending\2013\13-838.2241.moot.dec13.2013

-2-