Amos v. Duke

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER mooting 8 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, dismissing without prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
March 29, 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

OLAWOLE OLAJIDE AMOS,
Register No. A-207-400-489,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Petitioner,

v.
JEFF SESSIONS, et al.,
Respondents.

David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-3508

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The petitioner, Olawole Olajide Amos, also known as Olajide
Amos Olawole (A-207-400-489), filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S. C.

§

2241

("Petition")

(Docket Entry

No. 1) challenging his continued detention by immigration officials
while awaiting his removal from the United States.

The respondents

have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted
(Docket Entry No. 8).

("Respondents'

Motion")

The petitioner has not filed a response and

his time to do so has expired.

The Petition will be dismissed for

the reasons explained briefly below.
I.

On

December

16,

2016,

Discussion

the

petitioner

was

convicted

of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud and sentenced to serve a year and
a

day

in

federal

prison.

See

United

States

v.

Olaj ide Amos

Olawole, Crim. No. H-16-0162-01 (S.D. Tex.)

(Docket Entry No. 67).

As a native and citizen of Nigeria, the petitioner was taken into
custody of immigration officials on February 8, 2017, and placed in
removal proceedings. 1

An immigration judge entered an order of

removal against him on July 18, 2017. 2

On November 7,

2017,

the

petitioner executed the pending Petition, seeking release from his
continued detention under 28 U.S.C.
On January 23,
Petition

for

2018,

failure

§

2241. 3

the respondents moved to dismiss the

to

state

a

claim,

arguing

that

the

petitioner's continued detention was proper and that his removal
was reasonably foreseeable,

among other things. 4

The petitioner

was ordered to respond within twenty days to any dispositive motion
filed by the respondents. 5

The petitioner was warned that his

failure to respond would result in the dismissal of this action for
want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) . 6

The petitioner

has failed to respond as directed and officials at the detention
center where
Petition

have

the petitioner was
confirmed

that

confined when he executed his

he

has

been

removed

from

the

1

Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4.

2

Id.

3

Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 8.

4

Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 8, pp. 5-6.

5

0rder, Docket Entry No. 3, p. 3

6

Id.
-2-

~

6.

United States

and

is

no

longer

in custody.

The

petitioner's

release from custody necessarily calls into question whether the
court retains jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Petition.
Federal courts are "'courts of limited jurisdiction, having
"only the authority endowed by the Constitution and that conferred
by Congress."'" Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. ,
603 F.3d 290,

292

(5th Cir. 2010)

(citations omitted).

As such,

the existence of subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at
any stage in the litigation and may be raised by the district court
on its own motion.

See Nguyen v.

District Director,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
2005)

(citations omitted).

400 F.3d 255,

260

Bureau of
(5th Cir.

"If the court determines at any time

that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
the action."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (h) (3).

Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal
court jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies."
art. III,
moot

if

§

2.

it

Article III,

U.S.

Const.

The Supreme Court has explained that a case becomes

"no
§

longer present [s]
2,

a

case

of the Constitution."

S. Ct. 978, 983 (1998).

or

controversy under

Spencer v.

Kemna,

118

Under the case-or-controversy requirement,

"' [t] he parties must continue to have a
outcome" of the lawsuit.'"

Id.

"personal stake in the

(quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank

Corp., 110 S. Ct. 124 9, 1254 ( 1990)) .

"This means that, throughout

the litigation, the plaintiff 'must have suffered, or be threatened

-3-

with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.'"
110

s.

Ct. at 1253).

Id.

(quoting Lewis,

Because the petitioner challenged only his

continued detention, his release from custody leaves nothing for
this court to remedy.

Absent a case or controversy, the Petition

is moot and must be dismissed.
II.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3).

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing,

the court ORDERS as follows:

1.

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 u.s.c. § 2241 filed by Olawole Olajide Amos,
also known as Olajide Amos Olawole, (Docket Entry
No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.

2.

Respondents' Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 8)
is MOOT.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the parties of record.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 29th day of March, 2018.

7

SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-