Uzahodjaev v. Lowe et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM re MOTION to Reopen Case 29 and Suggestion of Mootness 33 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 8/8/17. (ma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HUSAN UZAHODJAEV,
Petitioner
vs.
CRAIG LOWE,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:16-CV-2006
(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
Background
On September 3, 2016, Petitioner Husan Uzahodjaev filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention
by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) at Pike County Prison. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 9, 2017,
Respondent replied to the petition and provided that in light of Chavez-Alvarez v.
Warden York County Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) and Petitioner’s eightmonth detention, that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether
detention is still necessary to fulfill the INA’s purpose of ensuring that Petitioner
attends removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger to the
community. (Doc. No. 16, at 6, Respondent’s Brief.)
On May 16, 2017, the Court ordered that ICE provide Petitioner with a bond
hearing before an immigration judge within 30 days of the Order (Doc. No. 23)
1

and closed the case. (Doc. No. 24.) On June 23, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to
reopen and reconsider arguing that the amount of the bond set by the immigration
judge was excessive. (Doc. No. 29.) As relief, Petitioner asks that the Court
“retain habeas corpus jurisdiction and hold an individualized bond hearing as
Petitioner does not have the resources to post a $50,000 bond.” (Id. at 4.)
On August 1, 2017, Petitioner informed the Court that he was released from
ICE custody and provided his home address for future correspondence. (Doc. No.
32.) On August 2, 2017, Respondent filed a suggestion of mootness, providing
that the Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that Petitioner was
released from ICE custody on July 26, 2017. (Doc. No. 33 at 2.) Respondent
provides that because the relief sought by Petitioner in his motion to reopen the
case is no longer available to him, his motion to reopen the case is now moot. (Id.)
Discussion
Federal district courts have jurisdiction in cases such as the present matter
where the detainee is seeking immediate release on bond pending removal on the
grounds that his continued ICE detention is unconstitutional. See Clarke v. Dep’t
of Homeland Security, No. 4:CV-09-1382, 2009 WL 2475440 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 12,
2009). It is equally well settled that the case or controversy requirement of Article
III, § 2 of the United States Constitution subsists through all stages of federal
judicial proceedings. Parties must continue to have a “personal stake in the
2

outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78
(1990); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). Throughout the course of
the action, the aggrieved party must suffer or be threatened with actual injury
caused by the defendant. Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477.
The adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon “the continuing
existence of a live and acute controversy.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452,
459 (1974) (emphasis in original). “The rule in federal cases is that an actual
controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the
complaint is filed.” Id. at n.10 (citations omitted). “Past exposure to illegal
conduct is insufficient to sustain a present case or controversy … if
unaccompanied by continuing, present adverse effects.” Rosenberg v. Meese, 622
F. Supp. 1451, 1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488,
495-96 (1974)); see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, No. 3:CV-02-465, slip op. at p.2
(M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002).
According to information provided to the Court by Respondent, Petitioner
was released from custody on July 26, 2017. Since Petitioner was recently
released from detention, under the principles set forth in Steffel, his challenge to
indefinite detention pending deportation is subject to dismissal as moot since it no

3

longer presents an existing case or controversy.1 See Novas v. ICE, 303 F. App’x
115, 118 n.3 (3d Cir. 2008) (release from ICE custody moots habeas petition solely
addressing detention issue). An appropriate Order follows.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: August 8, 2017

1

In the event that Petitioner is retaken into ICE custody, he may again seek relief by filing a
subsequent writ of habeas corpus. However, consideration of such speculative occurrence does
not warrant further consideration of this matter.
4