Pinoth v. Holder et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) (eo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LIZETH PINOTH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H, HOLDER, at al.
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

1:14-cv-01803
Hon. John E. Jones III

MEMORANDUM
January 29, 2015
Petitioner Lizeth Pinoth, formerly a detainee of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her detention by ICE pending removal from the United
States. (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed.
I.

Background
Pinoth, a native and citizen of Honduras, first entered the United States on or

about May 30, 2004. (Doc. 7, Ex. 1). Thereafter, Pinoth was removed from the
country, but subsequently reentered without authorization at an unknown date and
location. Id. at Ex. 2. Pinoth was again removed from the United States, and again
reentered without authorization on March 9, 2014 near Hidalgo, Texas. Id. at Ex.
3. On March 16, 2014, Pinoth’s previous order of removal was reinstated. Id.

On September 16, 2014, Pinoth filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
with this Court alleging that her continued detention pending removal from the
United States was contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Doc. 1). Pinoth does not challenge the
underlying order of removal. Id. Pinoth requests that this Court order her release
from ICE custody pending removal from the United States. Id. On January 28,
2014, Respondents filed a suggestion of mootness, arguing that Pinoth’s petition is
moot because she has been removed from the United States. (Doc. 8).
II.

Discussion
Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal courts to the

adjudication of only ongoing cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.
1. If at any time a petitioner does not have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the
suit, “the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,
77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
“[A] petition for habeas corpus relief generally becomes moot when a
prisoner is released from custody before the court had addressed the merits of the
petition.” DeFoy v. McCulough, 393 F.3d 439, 441 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Lane v.
Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982)). Consequently, where an ICE detainee
challenges only his or her continued detention and not the underlying order of

2

removal, the habeas petition becomes moot upon removal from the United States.
E.g., Tjandra v. Ashcroft, 110 F.App’x 290 (3d Cir. 2004).
Attached to the Respondents’ suggestion of mootness is a sworn declaration
provided by Michael C. Ramella, assistant field office director with the United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
(Doc. 8, Ex. 1). In this declaration, Ramella states that Department of Homeland
Security records reveal Pinoth was removed from the United States to Honduras on
December 19, 2014. Id. A search of the ICE online inmate locator system
confirms that Lizeth Pinoth, detainee number A098 347 276, is no longer in ICE
custody. As the only relief sought by Pinoth was her release from ICE custody,
this Court can no longer grant relief. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed as
moot. Tjandra, 110 F.App’x at 290.
IV.

Conclusion
A review of the record reveals that Pinoth’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus is moot. The petition will therefore be dismissed.
An appropriate Order will be entered.

3