UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-CV-22200-GAYLES

WILMAX ST. CHARLES,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM BARR, et al.,

Respondents

______________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [ECF No. 1]. The Court has reviewed the Petition and the 

record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Petition is dismissed as moot 

and for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, Wilmax St. Charles, challenges his continued detention by the United States 

Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 

and moves the Court for a stay of removal in his immigration case during the pendency of his 

appeal. At the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner was in ICE custody and detained at Krome 

Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida. [ECF No. 1]. 

Respondent, however, states that since filing the Petition, Petitioner has been removed from 

the United States and is no longer in ICE detention. [ECF No. 8]. Accordingly, Respondent argues, 

there is no longer a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution, and 

the Court should dismiss the Petition as moot and for lack of jurisdiction. Id.

Case 1:20-cv-22200-DPG Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

DISCUSSION

“Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the consideration 

of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies’” Soliman v. United States ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th 

Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). “The 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.’” Id. (quoting Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). 

“[A] case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can 

give meaningful relief.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

In Soliman, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed as moot an appeal filed by an alien who had 

sought habeas corpus relief from his continued detention pending execution of a removal order. 

Id. The alien was removed from the United States while the appeal was pending. Id. In light of 

Soliman’s removal, the Court found that it was “abundantly clear” that the appeal was moot 

because the relief sought—release from detention pending removal, in addition to other relief—

could not be affected by any order from the Court since Soliman was no longer being detained. Id. 

at 1243. 

Here, a search of ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System reveals no matching results for 

Petitioner based on his A-Number and name. The Court takes judicial notice of such pursuant to 

Fed. R. Evid. 201. Further, Respondent has produced documents indicating that Petitioner has been 

removed from the United States. [See ECF No. 8-8, Ex. G].

Because Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, having been deported to Haiti, no order 

from this Court directing his release would have any effect. As such, there is “nothing for us to 

remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.” Soliman, 296 F.3d at 1243 (internal quotation 

Case 1:20-cv-22200-DPG Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

omitted). Accordingly, to the extent that it seeks Petitioner’s release from custody, the Petition is 

dismissed as moot.

Moreover, to the extent that Petitioner seeks a stay of removal, the Court is without 

jurisdiction to consider the relief sought. See e.g. Majano Garcia v. Martin, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1301, 

1304 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (“With respect to immigration cases, challenges to removal orders or 

deportation are reviewable only by the appropriate court of appeals, not by a federal district 

court.”). Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed as moot and, in the alternative, for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED AS MOOT or, 

in the alternative, FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

2. This case is CLOSED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of September, 

2020.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-22200-DPG Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2020 Page 3 of 3