Kwadwo v. Lowe
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 6/21/17. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRIMPONG A. KWADWO,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN CRAIG LOWE,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No.: 4:17-CV-769
(Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JUNE 21, 2017
I.
BACKGROUND
Frimpong A. Kwadwo, 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 Pike County
Prison, Lords Valley, Pennsylvania. Warden Craig Lowe of the Pike County
Prison is named as the sole Respondent. Service of the petition was ordered on
May 8, 2017.
Petitioner describes himself as being a native and citizen of Ghana who
entered the United States in 1998 on a visa with an entertainment group. On
December 21, 2015, Kwadwo plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit
wire fraud in the United States District Court for the Western District of
-1-
Pennsylvania. He was sentenced to a ten (10) month term of imprisonment. After
completing service of his criminal sentence on March 11, 2016, Petitioner was
immediately taken into ICE custody. An immigration judge denied Kwadwo’s
request for withholding of removal and ordered his removal from the United States
on September 2, 2016.
According to the Petitioner, he has been detained by ICE since March 11,
2016. It is alleged that ICE has been unable to timely deport Kwadwo to Ghana in
a timely manner. Petitioner’s pending § 2241 petition challenges his indefinite
detention pending removal under the standards announced in Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678 (2001). As relief, Kwadwo seeks his immediate release pursuant to
an order of supervision or in the alternative that he be provided with an
individualized bond hearing. See Doc. 1, p. 4.
II.
DISCUSSION
On June 14, 2017, Respondent filed a response to the petition. See Doc. 7,
p. 1. The response states that Petitioner was removed to his native country of
Ghana on June 13, 2017. See id. at p. 3. Accordingly, Respondent contends that
since Kwadwo has been removed from the United States, 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:CV-02-465, slip op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May
17, 2002) (Vanaskie, C.J.).
As relief, Kwadwo sought his immediate release from ICE detention or an
individualized bond hearing. See Doc. 1, p. 4. Documents submitted by the
Respondent in Petitioner’s case indicate that he was removed to Ghana on June 13,
2017. See Doc. 7-1. Since Petitioner is no longer being detained by ICE, under the
principles set forth in Steffel, the instant petition is subject to dismissal as moot
-3-
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?