Lian v. Warden et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Hung Lian, 6 MOTION Custody Determination under DIOP v. ICE/Homeland Security and for Bond Determination Hearing filed by Hung Lian, and 7 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Hung Lian. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 6/13/2017. (jn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HUNG LIAN,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN YORK COUNTY PRISON, :
ET AL.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
No.: 4:16-CV-1906
(Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JUNE 13, 2017
I.
BACKGROUND
Hung Lian, a detainee of the Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) filed this petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while confined at the York County
Prison, York, Pennsylvania. The Warden of the York County Prison was deemed
to be the sole Respondent. Service of the petition was previously ordered.
Lian states that he is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China
who legally entered the United States in 1980 as a lawful permanent resident. On
October 10, 1995, Petitioner plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit
racketeering acts; conspiracy to commit murder; and use and carrying of a firearm
-1-
during a crime of violence in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. After completing service of his resulting criminal sentence
on April 12, 2016, Petitioner was released from the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons and taken into ICE custody. An immigration judge ordered his removal
from the United States following a June 1, 2016 hearing. Petitioner waived his
right to appeal the decision.
According to the Petitioner, he has been detained by ICE since April 12,
2016. It is alleged that ICE has been unable to timely deport Lian to China.
Petitioner’s pending § 2241 petition challenges his indefinite detention pending
removal under the standards announced in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001).
II.
DISCUSSION
On June 6, 2017, Respondent filed a “Suggestion of Mootness.” Doc. 9, p.
1. The notice states that Petitioner was released from ICE custody pursuant to an
order of supervision on June 5, 2017. See id. at p. 2.. Accordingly, Respondent
contends that since the relief sought by his pending action has been 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
-2-
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 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. 3:02-CV-465, slip op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May
17, 2002) (Vanaskie, C.J.).
As relief, Lian sought his immediate release from ICE detention. See Doc.
1, p. 18. A submitted copy of an order to release alien issued by ICE in
Petitioner’s case confirms that he was released from ICE custody on June 5, 2017.
See Doc. 9-1. Since Petitioner is no longer being detained by ICE, under the
-3-
principles set forth in Steffel, his instant petition is subject to dismissal as moot
since it no longer presents an existing case or controversy.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
-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?