Choudhury v. Sabol
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 8/28/17. (ma)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ENAYOT A. CHOUDHURY,
Petitioner
vs.
MARY SABOL,
Respondent
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 1:17-CV-01231
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
Background
On July 13, 2017, Petitioner Enayot A. Choudhury 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 York County Correctional Facility, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No.
1.) On July 19, 2017, the Court issued an Order upon Respondent to show cause
why the relief Petitioner requested should not be granted. (Doc. No. 4.)
On August 25, 2017, Respondent filed a suggestion of mootness, providing
that immigration officials removed Petitioner from the United States on August 22,
2017. (Doc. No. 9, Ex. C.) Respondent provides that Petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus has been rendered moot by virtue of his removal. (Doc. No.
10.)
1
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
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,
2
495-96 (1974)); see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, No. 3:CV-02-465, slip op. at p.2
(M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002). Further, the mootness doctrine is centrally concerned
with the court’s ability to grant effective relief: “If developments occur during the
course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a
suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must
be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99
(3d Cir. 1996); Lindaastuty v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 186 F. App’x 294, 298 (3d
Cir. 2006) (providing that deportation rendered petition challenging post-order
detention moot).
According to information provided to the Court by Respondent, Petitioner
was removed from the United States by ICE officials on August 22, 2017. (Doc.
No. 9, Ex. C.) Since Petitioner has been removed from the United States, under
the principles set forth above, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus has
been rendered moot as there is no longer a live case or controversy. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s petition will be dismissed as moot.
3
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Enayot A. Choudhury’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) will be DISMISSED as moot. An appropriate
Order follows.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: August 28, 2017
4
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?