Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00729/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00729-0/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

---

1

Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, David

O. Streiff, warden of the Perry County Correctional Facility, is hereby

substituted for as the proper Respondent in this action.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ADLIN DELFORT, : 

 :

Petitioner, :

:

vs. :

: CIVIL ACTION 06-00729-WS-B

DAVID O. STRIEFF1, et al., :

:

Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Adlin Delfort, a native of Haiti, 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 Delfort is no longer in ICE

custody, having been repatriated to his native Haiti on December

20, 2006.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Delfort acknowledges that he is a native of Haiti, that he

entered the United States on September 11, 1984, as a non-immigrant

visitor, that he was convicted of burglary in New York state court

Case 2:06-cv-00729-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 6
2

on May 1, 2000, that he was ordered removed from the United States

on December 10, 2001, and that he was placed in ICE custody on

March 23, 2006. (Docs. 2, 14, Ex. A)

2. Delfort filed the instant habeas corpus petition on December

30, 2006, wherein he argues that his continued detention by ICE

violated 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). Respondents filed a response on

January 29, 2007. Respondents assert that this action is now moot

because Delfort was removed from the United States on December 20,

2006. (Doc. 14, Exhibits B & C). 

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.

Case 2:06-cv-00729-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 6
3

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). 

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

Case 2:06-cv-00729-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 6
4

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

as moot because petitioner was removed to his native country of

Thailand). 

4. Much like the above-cited cases, this case has become moot.

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Delfort's petition for

habeas corpus relief is now moot because there exists no active

case or controversy. This Court can no longer grant Delfort the

relief requested in his petition, namely his immediate release from

ICE’s custody pending his removal to Haiti, because this relief has

already been afforded him. (See Doc. 14). Since 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). 

III. CONCLUSION

The undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Delfort’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.

Case 2:06-cv-00729-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/23/07 Page 4 of 6
5

DONE this 23rd day of April 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00729-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/23/07 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-00729-WS-B Document 15 Filed 04/23/07 Page 6 of 6