La v. Attorney General of the United States of America et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Tai Hon La. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 5/2/18. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TAI HON LA,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Petitioner,
v.
CLAIRE DOLL,
Respondent.
No. 4:18-CV-80
(Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
May 2, 2018
I.
BACKGROUND
Tai Hon La 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.
La describes himself as a native of Vietnam who entered the United States
on or about March 18, 1991. Petitioner states that he has been subject to a final
order of removal since July 10, 2017.
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
-1-
challenged his indefinite detention pending completion of his removal proceedings.
As relief, La sought his immediate release.
II.
DISCUSSION
On April 30, 2018, Respondent filed a “Notice of Mootness.” Doc. 8, p. 1.
The notice states that Petitioner was released from ICE custody on April 27, 2018.
See Doc. 8-1. 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
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
-2-
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 copy of an “Order to Release Alien” submitted by Respondent
confirms that La was released from ICE custody on April 27, 2018. Since
Petitioner is no longer being detained by ICE, and under the principles set forth in
Steffel, La’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-
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?