Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00676/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00676-0/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

MOHANSINGH RAMESH, :

 :

Petitioner, :

:

vs. :

: CIVIL ACTION 06-00676-WS-B

DAVID O. STREIFF, et al., :

:

Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Mohansingh Ramesh, a native of Trinidad and Tobago, 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©). Following a careful review of the record, it is

recommended that the instant petition be dismissed as moot because

Ramesh is no longer in ICE custody, having been repatriated to his

native country on January 2, 2007.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In his petition, Ramesh acknowledges that he is a native and

citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, and that he entered the United

States on August 8, 1997 under a tourist visa, which he overstayed.

(Doc. 1, p.4). 

2. According to Ramesh, an Immigration Judge ordered him removed

Case 2:06-cv-00676-WS-B Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 6
1

The docket reflects that recent mail addressed to Petitioner at the

Perry County Correctional Facility has been returned as undeliverable. (Doc.

9).

2

in September 2003, and he waived his right to appeal the decision.

(Doc. 1).

3. Ramesh was taken into ICE custody in April 2006. (Doc. 1).

4. On January 2, 2007, Ramesh was deported to Trinidad and

Tobago. (Doc. 10, Ex. 1)1.

 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

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 and repatriated 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)

Case 2:06-cv-00676-WS-B Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 6
3

(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). 

3. Several district courts have determined that once an

alien § 2241 petitioner has been removed from the United States and

deported to his native country, his petition seeking release from

detention and ICE custody becomes moot as "there is no longer a

live case or controversy as required under Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1."

Gauchier v. Davis, 2002 WL 975434, *2 (E.D. La. 2002); See Camara

v. INS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2465 (S.D. Ala.); Xing Hai Liu v.

Ashcroft, 218 F.Supp.2d 1 (D. Me. 2002) (petition for writ of

habeas corpus dismissed as moot because petitioner had been

returned to China); Malainak v. Immigration & Naturalization

Service, 2002 WL 220061 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (§ 2241 petition dismissed

Case 2:06-cv-00676-WS-B Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 6
4

as moot because petitioner was removed to his native country of

Thailand). 

4. In the instant action, Ramesh seeks his immediate release

from custody, and argues that he has cooperated with the

Government’s efforts to obtain his travel documents, that the

Government has been unable to obtain his travel documents, and that

he cannot be removed until resolution of his petition for review of

the removal order which is pending before the Second Circuit. The

Government has proffered documents which reflect that Ramesh was

deported to his native country on January 2, 2007, and the Court’s

search has not uncovered a pending appeal before the Second

Circuit. Accordingly, much like the above-cited cases, this case

has become moot because Ramesh has been deported to his native

country and is no longer in ICE custody. Accordingly, the

undersigned finds that Ramesh’s petition for habeas corpus relief

is now moot because there exists no active case or controversy.

This Court can no longer grant Petitioner the relief requested in

his petition, namely his immediate release from ICE’s custody

pending his removal because this relief has already been afforded

him. (See Doc. 10). Because there is nothing to remedy even if

this Court were disposed to do so, this action should be dismissed

without prejudice. Soliman, supra, 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). 

Case 2:06-cv-00676-WS-B Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 4 of 6
III. CONCLUSION

The undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Ramesh’s

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 17th day of May 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00676-WS-B Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 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)©); 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-00676-WS-B Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 6 of 6