Ahmed v. Holder et al

Filing 20

OPINION ON DISMISSAL denying as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 8 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss. This habeas action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(htippen, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
OLU JUDE AHMED,
A99 214 319,
Petitioner,
v.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

ERIC HOLDER, et al.,
Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-4936

OPINION ON DISMISSAL
Petitioner Olu Jude Ahmed filed, through counsel, a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenging his continued detention by the Department of
§
Homeland Security. (Docket Entry No.1). Respondents move to dismiss the petition because
petitioner has now been released from custody. (Docket Entry No.18). In a Supplement to the
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, respondents have attached a Warrant of Removal/Deportation,
which shows that petitioner was removed from this country on May 3, 2011. (Docket Entry
No.19-1). Petitioner has not filed a response to the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss the Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited under Article III, section 2 of the
Constitution to the adjudication of actual, live “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. CONST. Art. III;
Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 2004). When a habeas petitioner has been
released from custody, the Court can continue to exercise jurisdiction over the petition only if the
petitioner “demonstrates ‘some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended
incarceration.’” Zalawadia v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Spencer v.
Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). In other words, the petitioner must show that “some ‘collateral

1

consequence’ of the litigation’s outcome persists.” Alwan, 388 F.3d at 511 (quoting Spencer,
523 U.S. at 8).
In his original petition, petitioner challenged the constitutionality of his continued
detention during removal proceedings that were pending before the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (Docket Entry No.1). Petitioner became subject to a final order of removal on April 1,
2011, when the Board of Immigrations Appeals dismissed his appeal. (Docket Entry No.17-1,
pages 4-8). Although petitioner is still subject to the final removal order, he is no longer
detained by the Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, his personal stake in the outcome
of this action–securing his release from federal custody–is moot.
Accordingly, respondents’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry
No.18) is GRANTED. All other pending motions are DENIED, AS MOOT. This habeas action
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE .
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 21st day of July, 2011.

___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2