Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_08-cv-00374/USCOURTS-alsd-2_08-cv-00374-0/pdf.json

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

CHUN KWONG CHING, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CA 08-0374-WS-C

DAVID O. STREIFF, et al., :

Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 30, 2008, Chun Kwong Ching, a native and citizen of The

People’s Republic of China ordered removed from the United States,

petitioned this Court for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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).

It is recommended that the instant petition be dismissed, without prejudice to

being filed at a later date, because Ching is no longer in the custody of the

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arm of the

United States Department of Homeland Security.

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WS-C Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 7
1 In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2498, 150 L.Ed.2d 653

(2001), the Supreme Court held that the post-removal-period detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231,

“read in light of the Constitution’s demands, limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a

period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States. It does

not permit indefinite detention.” 

2

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ching is a native and citizen of The People’s Republic of China

who initially entered the United States in 1984. (Doc. 1, at 6) He was ordered

removed and voluntarily departed the country in 1990 only to return shortly

after departure. (Id.) Petitioner was taken into ICE custody on February 17,

2006, after serving a federal sentence for racketeering. (See id. at 6-7) In his

habeas petition filed on June 30, 2008, Ching’s sole argument was that his

continued custody by ICE beyond the 90-day removal period set forth by

statute, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Id. at 3 & 16-17)1

Significantly, petitioner sought immediate release from custody under an order

of supervision. (Id. at 17)

2. On July 23, 2008, Ching was released from ICE custody under

an Order of Supervision. (Doc. 5, Attached Documents) 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WS-C Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 7
3

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 thereby has garnered 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. As recognized by the Eleventh Circuit, “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.

As this Court has explained, “[p]ut 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

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WS-C Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 Page 3 of 7
4

dismissed.” In fact. “dismissal is required because mootness is

jurisdictional.”

Id. (internal citations omitted). 

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 Zadvydas is moot.” He, supra, 2006 WL

1687796, at *1; see also Abdalla v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2315089, *2 (W.D.

N.Y.) (“As, however, Petitioner does not dispute 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 (2004). 

4. This case is indistinguishable from He and Abdalla.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Ching’s petition for writ of habeas corpus

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

no longer order the federal respondents to release petitioner under an order of

supervision, as requested in the petition, because Ching has already been

released from the custody of ICE. “Quite simply, ‘there is nothing for us to

remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.’” 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). Dismissal of the instant petition is required since mootness

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WS-C Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 Page 4 of 7
2 The Eleventh Circuit has recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine which

the undersigned does not find applicable in the instant case.

Although there is an exception to the mootness doctrine when the action

being challenged by the lawsuit is capable of being repeated and evading review,

we have held that “this exception is ‘narrow,’ and applies only in ‘exceptional

situations.’” In particular, the exception can be invoked only when “(1) there [is]

a reasonable expectation or a demonstrated probability that the same controversy

will recur involving the same complaining party, and (2) the challenged action is

in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration.”

Simply put, “[t]he remote possibility that an event might recur is not enough to

overcome mootness, and even a likely recurrence is insufficient if there would be

ample opportunity for review at that time.”

Soliman, 296 F.3d at 1242-1243 (internal citations omitted; emphasis in original). There is

simply nothing to suggest that Ching will be placed back into the custody of ICE pending his

removal to The People’s Republic of China. Accordingly, the foregoing exception to the

mootness doctrine is inapplicable.

5

is jurisdictional.2

CONCLUSION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that Chun Kwong Ching’s petition

for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

The instructions which follow the undersigned’s signature contain

important information regarding objections to the report and recommendation

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WS-C Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 Page 5 of 7
6

of the Magistrate Judge.

DONE this the 28th day of July, 2008.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WS-C Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 Page 6 of 7
7

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.

_s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY___________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WS-C Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 Page 7 of 7