Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31110/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31110-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31110

Summary Calendar

FLOYD STANHOPE FRANCIS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:14-CV-168

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In February 2014, Floyd Stanhope Francis, a native and citizen of 

Jamaica, filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his 

prolonged detention by the Department of Homeland Security as 

unconstitutional in light of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and 

seeking injunctive relief. The Government has moved to supplement the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 11, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31110 Document: 00513266687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2015
No. 14-31110

2

record with a declaration from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

that Francis was removed to Jamaica on August 27, 2015.

“Whether an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates 

the Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy.” Bailey v. 

Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). “In general, a matter is moot 

for Article III purposes if the issues presented are no longer live or the parties 

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Sierra Club v. Glickman, 

156 F.3d 606, 619 (5th Cir. 1998).

In this appeal, Francis challenged only the lawfulness of the length of 

his post-removal-order detention, not the basis for his removal or the removal 

order itself. Thus, because he is no longer detained and has been removed from 

the United States, his challenge is now moot. See Odus v. Ashcroft, 61 F. App’x 

121, 121 (5th Cir. 2003); Umanzor v. Lambert, 782 F.2d 1299, 1301 (5th Cir. 

1986).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Francis’s motion to 

supplement his brief is DENIED; the Government’s motion to supplement the 

record is GRANTED.

 Case: 14-31110 Document: 00513266687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2015