IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DAVE T., §

PETITIONER, §

§

V. § CIVIL NO. 3:22-CV-1381-G-BK

§

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND §

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ET AL., §

RESPONDENTS. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, Petitioner Dave T’s petition for writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for 

case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. Doc. 3. 

Dave, an alien detainee, challenges his detention pending removal under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 

U.S. 678 (2001). However, Respondent advises that the United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement removed Dave from the United States on June 30, 2022. Doc. 7 at 1. As such, the 

issue presented in the habeas petition is now moot.

“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court 

jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 

U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or 

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v. 

McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)).

Here, the habeas petition only sought Dave’s release from custody pending his removal. 

Doc. 3 at 4, 8. Since he is no longer detained and has been removed from the United States, his 

Case 3:22-cv-01381-G-BK Document 11 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 37
2

sole ground for relief is now moot and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his petition. See 

Francis v. Lynch, 622 F. App’x 455 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (removal moots habeas petition 

seeking release from detention under Zadvydas); Odus v. Ashcroft, 61 F. App’x 121, 2003 WL 

342719, 1 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (same). 

Therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction as moot. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).

SO RECOMMENDED on August 4, 2022.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific 

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time 

to file objections to 14 days). 

Case 3:22-cv-01381-G-BK Document 11 Filed 08/04/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 38