Gomez v. Holder et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL granting 10 MOTION to Dismiss (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kcarr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANDRES F. GOMEZ,
A # 096036474, ",
Petitioner,

§

V.

§

ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al.,
Respondents.

§

5
5
CIVIL ACTION H-12-3442

5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner Andres F. Gomez filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.5

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 and removed to Columbia on
January 28, 2013.

(Docket Entry No. 10) . Respondents have attached

documentation sfipwing that petitioner has indeed been removed from
this country.

(Docket Entry No.10-2).

Petitioner has not filed a

response to the Motion to Dismiss.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited under
Article 111, section 2 of the Constitution to the adjudication of
actual, live "cases" and "controversies."
Alwan v. Ashcroft,

U.S. Const. Art. 111;
Cir.

When

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.'"
I

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 consequence' of the litigationrs 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 because the likelihood
of his removal was indefinite.

(Docket Entry No.1, page 6).

Petitioner became subject to a final order of removal on November
16, 2006, and was deported on January 28, 2013.
No.10-2, pages 1,2).

(Docket Entry

Therefore, his personal stake in the outcome

of this action-securing his release from federal custody-is moot.
Accordingly, Respondentsf Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry
No.10) 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, on

.

g3

, 2013.

UNITED ST^&?'$ DISTRICT JUDGE