Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02490/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02490-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ahmed Hassan Ali
Appellee
Mark Cangemi
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2490

___________

Ahmed Hassan Ali, also *

known as Ahmed Warsame, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Mark Cangemi, Interim Director, *

Bureau of Immigration and Customs *

Enforcement, *

* 

Appellant. *

 ___________

Submitted: April 11, 2005

Filed: August 16, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY, WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

MURPHY, BYE, RILEY, MELLOY, SMITH, COLLOTON, GRUENDER,

and BENTON, Circuit Judges, en banc.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

On May 15, 2003, Ahmed Hassan Ali (Ali), a native of Somalia, applied in the

district court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging his

extended detention awaiting deportation was unlawful and requesting the government

release him from custody. On June 1, 2004, the district court granted the writ, and

thereafter the government pursued this appeal. A panel of this court affirmed in a

Appellate Case: 04-2490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2005 Entry ID: 1940779 
-2-

September 27, 2004 opinion. Ali v. Cangemi, 384 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2004). On

November 23, 2004, the en banc court vacated the panel opinion and granted

rehearing en banc. We now reverse and vacate the district court judgment, and direct

the district court to dismiss, without prejudice, Ali’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus as moot.

On December 29, 2004, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(BICE) released Ali, allegedly by mistake, pursuant to an order of supervision issued

under one of Ali’s aliases. Since releasing Ali from custody, BICE has been

unsuccessful to date in its attempts to locate Ali. Because Ali has failed to comply

with the order of supervision requiring him to report to BICE and to notify BICE of

any change of residence, BICE considers Ali a fugitive and intends to apprehend Ali

and return him to custody. 

On February 2, 2005, the original panel in this case ordered supplemental

briefing to address the current custodial status of Ali, whether Ali’s status rendered

this appeal moot, and the effect on this appeal of two recent Supreme Court decisions,

Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 125 S. Ct. 694 (2005), and Clark v.

Martinez, 125 S. Ct. 716 (2005). In response to the request for supplemental briefing,

both Ali and the government contend Ali’s release does not moot this appeal. The

government argues that if Ali is located, his future detention is likely and, therefore,

a case or controversy continues to exist. Ali’s counsel argues, because the

government intends to reincarcerate Ali if given the opportunity, a case or

controversy remains present.

Two varieties of mootness exist: Article III mootness and prudential mootness.

Article III mootness arises from the Constitution’s case and controversy requirement:

“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal

courts to actual, ongoing cases and controversies.” Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466,

469 (8th Cir. 2000); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “When, during the course of

Appellate Case: 04-2490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2005 Entry ID: 1940779 
-3-

litigation, the issues presented in a case ‘lose their life because of the passage of time

or a change in circumstances . . . and a federal court can no longer grant effective

relief,’ the case is considered moot.” Id. (quoting Beck v. Mo. State High Sch.

Activities Ass’n, 18 F.3d 604, 605 (8th Cir. 1994) (alteration in original)); see also

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (stating an action becomes moot where it “no

longer present[s] a case or controversy under Article III”). If an issue is moot in the

Article III sense, we have no discretion and must dismiss the action for lack of

jurisdiction. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 n.7 (1969). 

On the other hand, prudential mootness, “[t]he cousin of the mootness doctrine,

in its strict Article III sense, is a melange of doctrines relating to the court’s discretion

in matters of remedy and judicial administration.” Chamber of Commerce v. United

States Dep’t of Energy, 627 F.2d 289, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Even if a court has

jurisdiction under Article III to decide a case, prudential concerns may militate

against the use of judicial power, i.e., the court “should treat [the case] as moot for

prudential reasons.” United States v. (Under Seal), 757 F.2d 600, 603 (4th Cir.

1985); see also Alton & S. Ry. Co. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace

Workers, 463 F.2d 872, 877 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (recognizing “the constitutional power

of a court to decide a contention presented on appeal does not define a constitutional

duty. There is latitude in appellate courts to develop doctrines of judicial

administration that permit a court to decline decision though not precluded by a

jurisdictional bar from consideration of the matter.”); 13A Charles Alan Wright,

Arthur R. Miller, Edward M. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.1, at

222-26 (2d ed. 1984). A panel of our court adopted the prudential mootness doctrine

reasoning in Voyageurs Nat’l Park Ass’n v. Norton, 381 F.3d 759, 765 (8th Cir.

2004) (citing S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724, 727-30 (10th Cir.

1997)). 

Appellate Case: 04-2490 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2005 Entry ID: 1940779 
-4-

With Ali’s December 29, 2004 release, Ali arguably received the relief he

requested. See, e.g., Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding

petitioner’s release from detention under an order of supervision “moots his challenge

to the legality of his extended detention”); Camara v. Comfort, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1174,

1176 (D. Colo. 2002) (holding petitioner’s release from custody rendered his habeas

petition moot). Because Ali was in custody when he filed his application for a writ

of habeas corpus, his subsequent release from custody does not automatically moot

this appeal in the Article III sense. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. However, we need not

decide whether Ali’s case is moot in the Article III sense, because we conclude Ali’s

case is prudentially moot in light of the myriad of uncertainties in this case, including

whether and where Ali might be apprehended, the changing country conditions in

Somalia, and our inability to provide an effective remedy at this time. 

Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the judgment of the district court, remand

the case to the district court, and instruct the district court to dismiss, without

prejudice, Ali’s application for a writ of habeas corpus as moot. See Simpson v.

Camper, 974 F.2d 1030, 1031 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Munsingwear,

Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40 (1950)) (providing the dismissal of a habeas petition “is the

customary form of disposition in cases that become moot while pending on appeal”).

LAY, Circuit Judge, with whom BYE, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring and

dissenting.

I do not agree that the case should be dismissed on the ground of mootness for

prudential reasons. 

Appellate Case: 04-2490 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/16/2005 Entry ID: 1940779 
-5-

One difficulty with the majority opinion is that it fails to discuss the elements

of prudential mootness in a meaningful way. Judge Phillips of the Fourth Circuit

explained that sometimes a case can be treated

as moot for prudential reasons. See, generally, 13A Wright, Miller &

Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3533.1.

These have to do both with our inability to give an effective remedy

under the circumstances now developed and with the imprudence of

deciding on the merits a difficult and sensitive constitutional issue

whose essence has been at least substantially altered by supervening

events; which is not likely to recur in its original form in respect of these

appellees; and which in its altered form is now subject to determination

in a more appropriate forum and litigation setting.

United States v. (Under Seal), 757 F.2d 600, 603 (4th Cir. 1985). The majority

announces in conclusory language that we are unable to provide effective remedy

because of the myriad uncertainties in this case. Majority opinion at 4. I do not see

that as the case. Were we to reach the constitutional question looming in this case –

i.e., whether any further detention of Ali would offend Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.

678 (2000) – we would face an issue that is purely a question of law. Resolution of

that legal question is not encumbered by the fact of Ali’s mistaken release (as the

government has vowed to reapprehend him), or the country conditions in Somalia.

In short, the majority has failed to demonstrate that the circumstances of this case are

a good fit for the prudential mootness doctrine.

At the very least, this case requires a remand to the district court to determine

the status of the case so that it can be dismissed or brought back to this court in its

present form after the district court has had an opportunity to review our remand. If

this direction was included in the majority opinion it would be much more

informative to the district court than what is presently written by the majority opinion.

Appellate Case: 04-2490 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/16/2005 Entry ID: 1940779 
-6-

More important is the fact that Zadvydas and Clark v. Martinez, 125 S. Ct. 716

(2005), still remain. Both of these cases demonstrate that Ali should not be detained

any further since further detention would be unconstitutional. He has already served

over thirteen months in detention solely for the purpose of awaiting removal to

Somalia. Even the government concedes that Ali’s removal is not “reasonably

foreseeable,” Supp. Brief for Respondent at 10, as required by Zadyvdas. See 533

U.S. at 699-701. The district court, upon remand, could reconsider whether to affirm

Ali’s petition for habeas corpus based upon additional evidence, or to dismiss the

case.

This case should terminate somewhere. 

As the majority opinion merely dismisses without prejudice, it leaves the matter

open ended, and there is no hope for a final termination.

_____________________________ 

Appellate Case: 04-2490 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/16/2005 Entry ID: 1940779