Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00718/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00718-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SHARIFF ABBAS MOHAMMED, :

 :

Petitioner, :

:

vs. :

: CIVIL ACTION 06-00718-CG-B

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al., :

:

Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Shariff Abbas Mohammed, a native of Zanzibar, Tanzania, filed

a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging

his continued detention by the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). This

matter has been referred to the undersigned for entry of a report

and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72.1(c). Following a careful review of the record, it is

recommended that the instant petition be dismissed as moot because

Mohammed is no longer in ICE custody, having been released from

ICE custody pending deportation.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mohammed asserts that he is a native of Tanzani, and that he

illegally entered the United States in 2001, aboard a cargo vessel

originating from Lagos, Nigeria. (See Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 1, Exhibit

A). Subsequent thereto, Mohammed filed a Canadian application for

refugee status, and was permitted to live in that country for four

Case 2:06-cv-00718-CG-B Document 19 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 6
2

years pending consideration of his refugee status. On April 18,

2005, Mohammed’s application for refugee status was denied, and he

was subsequently transferred by the Canadian Border Services Agency

to ICE custody under a removal warrant for Mohammed’s return to the

United States.(Id.). 

On October 25, 2006, Mohammed filed the instant petition for

writ of habeas corpus, wherein he asserts that his continued

detention by ICE violates the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) as

interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Zavydas v. Davis,

533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (2001). (Doc. 1 at 10). On February

9, 2007, Mohammed was released on his own recognizance pending his

deportation from the United States. (Doc. 16, Exhibit 1). On

February 26, 2007, Mohammed filed a “Notice of Change of Address”

wherein he advised the Court that he has been released from the

Perry County Correctional Facility, and is now residing at 1376 A

Street, Elmont, New York 11003. (Doc. 17). Respondents have filed

an Answer and asserted that Mohammed’s habeas petition is now moot

in light of his release from custody. (Doc. 16). 

 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. “In reviewing a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a

detained alien who is subject to a final order of removal, a

federal district court, pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3), is to gauge whether a particular set of circumstances

amounts to detention within, or beyond, a period reasonably

Case 2:06-cv-00718-CG-B Document 19 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 6
3

necessary to secure removal." He v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 1687796, *1

(W.D. La. 2006). Where, as here, a § 2241 petitioner has been

released from federal custody pending deportation to his native

country, thereby garnering the relief sought in filing his habeas

corpus petition, the issue becomes whether there is any longer a

live case or controversy or, instead, if the petition has become

moot. See Id.

2. The Eleventh Circuit has observed that "Article III of

the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to

the consideration of ‘Cases' and ‘Controversies.'" Soliman v.

United States ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002)

(citation omitted); See also Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330,

1335 (11th Cir. 2001) (same). Moreover, "[t]he doctrine of

mootness derives directly from the case or controversy limitation

because ‘an action that is moot cannot be characterized as an

active case or controversy.'" Soliman, 296 F.3d at 1242. Put 

another way, “a case is moot when it no longer presents a live

controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful

relief." Therefore, "[i]f events that occur subsequent to the

filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability

to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case

is moot and must be dismissed." In fact, "dismissal is required

because mootness is jurisdictional." Id. (internal citations

omitted). 

Case 2:06-cv-00718-CG-B Document 19 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 6
1

In his habeas petition, Mohammed also requests that this Court “assume

jurisdiction over this matter; grant asylum, withholding of removal.” (Doc. 1

at 12). This request alone, without evidence that Mohammed will continue to

experience ‘some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended

incarceration,’ or will suffer collateral consequences despite his release

from ICE custody, is insufficient to establish a case or controversy on which

to base an exercise of this Court’s habeas jurisdiction. See Baig v. Ashcroft,

2005 WL 1309052. 

4

3. Several district courts have determined that where an

alien is released from ICE custody pending removal from the United

States, “his petition for habeas relief under Zavydas is moot.” He,

supra, 2006 WL 1687796, at *1; see also Abdalla v. Ashcroft, 2004

WL 2315089, *2 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) (Where the petitioner does not

dispute that he was released from administrative custody on January

30, 2004, the instant petition no longer presents a case or

controversy pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the United States

Constitution.), adopted by Abdalla v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2491646

(W.D.N.Y. 2004).

4. In light of the extant case law, the undersigned finds

that Mohammed's petition for habeas corpus relief is now moot

because there exists no active case or controversy. Mohammed has

been released from ICE custody and is now residing in New York.

Thus, this Court can no longer grant Petitioner the relief

requested in his petition, namely his immediate release from ICE’s

custody pending his removal from the United States, because this

relief has already been afforded him. (See Doc. 16). Because there

is nothing to remedy even if this Court were disposed to do so,

this action should be dismissed without prejudice.1 Soliman, supra,

Case 2:06-cv-00718-CG-B Document 19 Filed 04/20/07 Page 4 of 6
5

296 F.3d at 1243, quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18, 118

S.Ct. 978, 988, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). 

III. CONCLUSION

The undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Mohammed’

petition seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

be DISMISSED as moot.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge.

DONE this 20th day of April 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00718-CG-B Document 19 Filed 04/20/07 Page 5 of 6
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738

(11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.

Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings

and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate

judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a ‘Statement of Objection to

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation' within ten days after being

served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection shall specify

those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made and

the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall submit to

the district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a brief

setting forth the party's arguments that the magistrate judge's

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the

original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy

of the original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. Failure

to submit a brief in support of the objection may be deemed an

abandonment of the objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge's order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate

Judge finds that the tapes and original records in this case are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

Case 2:06-cv-00718-CG-B Document 19 Filed 04/20/07 Page 6 of 6