Miguel v. Doll

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 3/5/18. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIGUEL SILVESTRE SILVESTRE,
Petitioner,
v.
CLAIRE DOLL,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 4:17-CV-2050
(Judge Brann)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARCH 5, 2018
I.

BACKGROUND
Miguel Silvestre Silvestre filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained by the Department of Homeland
Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the York County
Prison, York, Pennsylvania. Named as Respondent is Warden Claire Doll of the
York County Prison. Service of the petition was previously ordered.
Silvestre-Silvestre is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the
United States without a valid entry document approximately ten (10) years ago.
Following his arrest on assault and related charges, he was released into ICE
custody on May 4, 2017. An immigration judge ordered Petitioner’s removal
from the United States on August 23, 2017. Petitioner previously appealed that

-1-

decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
According to the Petitioner, he had been detained by ICE for over six
months at the time this matter was filed. Petitioner’s pending § 2241 petition
challenged his indefinite detention pending completion of his removal proceedings.
II.

DISCUSSION
On February 27, 2018, Respondent filed a “Suggestion of Mootness.” Doc.

8, p. 1. The notice states that Petitioner was removed from the United States on
February 7, 2018. See id. Accordingly, Respondent contends that since Petitioner
is no longer being detained by ICE, 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
-2-

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, Petitioner sought his immediate release from ICE detention. See
Doc. 1, ¶ 15. A review of ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System confirms that
Silvestre-Silvestre was released from ICE custody on February 7, 2018. Since
Petitioner is no longer being detained by ICE, under the principles set forth in
Steffel, Silvestre-Silvestre’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

-3-