Alipui v. Holder et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)As relief, Alipui sought his immediate release from ICE detention under an order of supervision or an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. See Doc. 1, p. 14. A submitted copy of a Warrant of Removal issued by ICE in Petitioners case confirms that he was removed from the United States on November 1, 2016. See Doc. 27-1, p. 2. Since Petitioner is no longer being detained by ICE, under the principles set forth in Steffel, Alipuis instant petition is subject to dismissal as moot since it no longer presents an existing case or controversy. An appropriate Order will enter.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 12/2/16. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER KUDJO ALIPUI,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC HOLDER, ET AL.,
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-1255
(Judge Conaboy)

___________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM
Background
Christopher Kudjo Alipui, a detainee of the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) filed this pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
while confined at the York County Prison, York, Pennsylvania.1
After being transferred to the Pike County Correctional Facility,
Lords Valley, Pennsylvania, Alipui filed a second § 2241 petition
with this Court which was subsequently consolidated into this
matter.
Named as Respondents were various federal officials and
Warden Mary Sabol of the York County Prison.

Petitioner, a native

of Ghana, alleged that because there is no likelihood that he will
1

Federal district courts only have jurisdiction in ICE cases
where a detainee is seeking immediate release on bond pending
removal on the grounds that his continued detention is
unconstitutional. See Clarke v. Department of Homeland Security,
2009 WL 2475440 * 1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2009)(Jones, J.).

be deported in the foreseeable future, his continued indefinite
detention by the ICE pending completion of his removal proceedings
was unconstitutional pursuant to the standards announced in
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Discussion
On November 18, 2016, Respondents filed a “Suggestion of
Mootness.”

Doc. 27, p. 1.

The notice states that Petitioner was

deported from the United States pursuant to a Warrant of
removal/Deportation on November 1, 2016.

Accordingly, Respondents

contend that since the relief sought by his pending action can no
longer be granted, dismissal on the basis of mootness is
appropriate.
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).

In other words, 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

2

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, Civil No. 3:CV-02-465, slip op. at p.
2 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002) (Vanaskie, C.J.).
As relief, Alipui sought his immediate release from ICE
detention under an order of supervision or an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge.

See Doc. 1, p. 14.

A

submitted copy of a Warrant of Removal issued by ICE in
Petitioner’s case confirms that he was removed from the United
States on November 1, 2016.

See Doc. 27-1, p. 2.

Since Petitioner

is no longer being detained by ICE, under the principles set forth
in Steffel, Alipui’s instant petition is subject to dismissal as
moot since it no longer presents an existing case or controversy.
An appropriate Order will enter.

S/Richard P. Conaboy
RICHARD P. CONABOY
United States District Judge
DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2016

3