Guillen-Ramirez v. Johnson et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/13/18. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PEDRO GUILLEN RAMIREZ,
WARDEN CRAIG LOWE, ET AL.,
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
Pedro Guillen Ramirez, a detainee of the Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) presently confined at the Pike
County Prison, Lords Valley, Pennsylvania, filed this petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Warden Craig Lowe of the Pike County
Prison was previously deemed to be the sole Respondent. Service of the petition
Guillen Ramirez states that he is a native and citizen of El Salvador who first
entered the United States on July 25, 2000. While in this country, Petitioner was
convicted of a sexual offense in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As a result of that
conviction, Guillen Ramirez was removed from the United States.
Thereafter, Petitioner illegally reentered this country. He was retaken into
custody by the United States Secret Service at a traffic stop. After completing a
prison term for an illegal reentry conviction, an immigration judge ordered
Petitioner’s removal on January 6, 2017. The Board of Immigration Appeals
affirmed that decision on February 3, 2017. Guillen Ramirez indicates that he has
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
See Doc. 6, p. 2.
According to the Petitioner, he had been detained by ICE for almost eleven
(11) months at the time this matter was filed. Petitioner’s pending § 2241 petition
challenges his indefinite detention pending completion of his removal proceedings
under the standards announced in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) and
On February 2, 2018, Respondent filed a “Suggestion of Mootness.” Doc. 9,
p. 1. The notice states that Petitioner was removed from the United States on
November 29, 2017. See id. Accordingly, Respondent contends that since Guillen
Ramirez has been removed from this country, dismissal on the basis of mootness is
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 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, Guillen Ramirez sought his immediate release from ICE detention.
See Doc. 1, p. 11d. A submitted copy of Petitioner’s ICE Detention History shows
that he was removed on November 29, 2017. See Doc. 9-1. Since Petitioner is no
longer being detained by ICE, under the principles set forth in Steffel, Guillen
Ramirez’s 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
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?