Tanios v. Johnson

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The Respondents' 5 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED. The habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as MOOT. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. (Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KOZHAYA TANIOS,
Petitioner,

v.
JEFF SESSIONS, et al.,
Respondents.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

October 13, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-cv-1387

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Kozhaya Tanios (A# 201167623) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the duration of his confinement by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials with the United States Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss, advising the Court that
Tanios has been released from custody and that his petition is moot. (Docket Entry No.
5). Tanios has not provided the Court with an updated address following his release and
appears to have abandoned his petition. After considering all of the pleadings and the
applicable law, the Court will grant the respondents' motion and dismiss this case as
moot. Alternatively, the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

I.

Discussion
According to the petition, which was received on May 4, 2017, Tanios is a native

and citizen of Lebanon. On September 17, 2012, the United States Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA) extradited Tanios from the Dominican Republic to the United States. On
January 26, 2017, Tanios was taken into ICE custody following his release from federal

pnson. Because he has been in custody for more than 90 days without a foreseeable
removal date, Tanios argues he is entitled to habeas corpus relief under Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In that case, the Supreme Court held that persons may be
detained pending removal for a "presumptively reasonable period" of no more than six
months after the removal period expires. See id. at 701.
The respondents have advised the Court that on June 20, 2017, Tanios was
escorted from the United States to Lebanon.

(Docket Entry Nos. 5, 5-2).

The

respondents note, therefore, that Tanios' s release from custody renders his habeas corpus
petition moot.
The United States Supreme Court has explained that a case becomes moot if it "no
longer present[ s] a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution."
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Under the case or controversy requirement,
"[t]he parties must continue to have a 'personal stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit."'
/d. (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990)). "This

means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff 'must have suffered, or be threatened
with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision."' /d. (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). Because Tanios's petition
challenges only his continued detention, his release from custody leaves nothing for this
Court to remedy. See id. at 18. The Court concludes, therefore, that Tanios's petition is
moot and must be dismissed.
Alternatively, Tanios has not provided the Court with a change of address
following his release from custody as required by Rule 83.4 of the Local Rules for the
2

Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

Under that rule a pro se litigant is

responsible for keeping the Clerk advised in writing of his current address. Tanios has
clearly failed to provide the Court with an accurate, current address. Therefore, under the
inherent powers necessarily vested in a court to manage its own affairs, this Court
determines that dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting that a district court
may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court
order). For this additional reason, this case will be dismissed.
II.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

The respondents' motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 5), is GRANTED.

2.

The habeas corpus petition filed by Kozhaya Tanios is DISMISSED
without prejudice as MOOT.

3.

Alternatively, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of
prosecution.

OCT 1 2 2017

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on----------=--------

ALFRED . BENNETT
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

3