Al Raji v. Chandler

Filing 7

Opinion and Order: Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED as moot. Also, for the reasons discussed, a certificate of appealability is DENIED as Petitioner has not made a showing that reasonable jurists would question this Court's procedural ruling. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 4/26/2017) (skg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
DEYA ALDEEN KHAMIS AL RAJI,
aka DIYA AL RAJI,
Petitioner,
v.
RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden,
FMC-Fort Worth,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-272-O

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed
on behalf of petitioner, Deya Aldeen Khamis Al Raji, also known as Diya Al Raji, a federal prisoner
who was confined at FMC-Fort Worth at the time the petition was filed, against Rodney W.
Chandler, warden of FMC-Fort Worth, Respondent. After considering the petition and relief sought
by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed for mootness.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2017, Petitioner was sentenced to time served by this Court for the offense of
misprison of felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. J., United States v. Deya Al Raji, No. 4:16-CR243-O, ECF No. 290. Petitioner asserts that he was informed thereafter that he was being held up
to an additional 48 hours pursuant to a detainer request from the Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Pet. 1, ECF No. 1. On March 30, 2017, Petitioner
filed this federal habeas petition seeking release because more than 48 hours had passed after his
incarceration pursuant to the ICE detainer and he had not been released. According to Petitioner, his
continued detention by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violates the Fourth Amendment and is

no longer in anyway authorized by 8U.S.C. § 1357(d). Pet. 1, ECF No. 1. Respondent filed a timely
response, to which Petitioner did not file a reply within the time allowed.
II. DISCUSSION
The detainer provision under 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(d) provides:
Upon a determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise
detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain custody of the alien
for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in
order to permit assumption of custody by the Department.
8 C.F.R. § 287.7(d) (2011).
The United States Attorney’s Office contends that on the morning of March 31, 2017, it was
served the petition and show cause order on behalf of Respondent, but the BOP had released
Petitioner to ICE custody before service was effected, rendering the petition moot. Resp’t’s Resp.
1, ECF No. 6. The Court agrees. Although an action “is not moot simply because a § 2241 petitioner
is no longer in custody,” it is rendered moot “when the court cannot grant the relief requested by the
moving party.” Salgado v. Fed. Bur. of Prisons, 220 Fed. App’x 256, 2007 WL 627580, at *1 (5th
Cir. Feb. 22, 2007) (citing Brown v. Resor, 407 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 1969)); Bailey v.
Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). The issue of whether a case is moot presents a
jurisdictional matter because it implicates the Article III requirement that an actual controversy exist
at all stages of federal court proceedings. Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278. A moot case “presents no Article
III case or controversy, and a court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issues it presents.”
Adair v. Dretke, 150 Fed. Appx. 329, 2005 WL 2473569, at * (5th Cir. Oct.6, 2005) (citation
omitted). Because Petitioner was released to ICE custody before service of the petition and show
cause order, the Court could no longer provide Petitioner with the relief requested. Nor does

2

Petitioner allege that in the wake of his release to ICE custody he was and continues to be subject
to future adverse consequences related to his petition. Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED as moot. Also, for the reasons discussed, a certificate of appealability
is DENIED as Petitioner has not made a showing that reasonable jurists would question this Court’s
procedural ruling.
SO ORDERED on this 26th day of April, 2017.

_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3