IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

PRASAD SHRMANJADUN BHIM, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-765 

 Petitioner, Judge Michael H. Watson 

 Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney 

General of the United States of America, 

United States Department of Justice, et al., 

 Respondents. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Petitioner, a citizen of Nepal, filed this Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 seeking immediate release from the custody of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (“ICE”). Petitioner asserts that he is being illegally detained under Zadvydas v.

Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Petitioner was, at the time he filed this action, incarcerated at the 

Morrow County Correctional Facility pursuant to a September 2016 order of removal. However, 

the record now reflects that, on October 23, 2017, ICE removed Petitioner from the United States 

to Nepal. See Declaration of Amanda Glassburn (ECF No. 12-1, PAGEID # 69); Warrant of 

Removal/Deportation (ECF No. 12-2, PAGEID # 71-72.) Therefore, the Petitioner is no longer 

in the custody of ICE or in the United States. 

It is well established that federal courts may only adjudicate live cases or controversies. 

Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48, 90 S.Ct. 200, 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (1969). Consequently, federal 

courts lack jurisdiction to consider a case when it has “‘lost its character as a present, live 

controversy’ and thereby becomes moot.” Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Hall, 396 U.S. at 48). “Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no 

Case: 2:17-cv-00765-MHW-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 74
2 

longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. (quoting Int'l 

Union v. Dana Corp., 697 F.2d 718, 720–21 (6th Cir. 1983)). 

“Several courts have determined that where an alien is released from ICE custody 

pending removal from the United States, ‘his petition for relief under Zavydas is moot.’” Labor 

v. Ice, Immigration, No. 2:14-cv-200, 2014 WL 3456946, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2014) 

(quoting Patel v. Streiff, 2008 WL 748396, *2 (S.D. Ala. Mar.18, 2008) (internal quotation 

omitted) (dismissing habeas corpus petition as moot upon the petitioner’s removal from the 

United States); see also Wu Wei Tong v. Attorney General, No. 2:17-cv-1007, 2017 WL 6497065 

(S.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2017) (same) (citations omitted). 

Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and 

Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 9, 12) be GRANTED and that this action be 

DISMISSED, as moot. 

Procedure on Objections 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting 

authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 

made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 

in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may 

recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report 

Case: 2:17-cv-00765-MHW-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 75
3 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

The parties are further advised that, if they intend to file an appeal of any adverse 

decision, they may submit arguments in any objections filed, regarding whether a certificate of 

appealability should issue. 

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura___ 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case: 2:17-cv-00765-MHW-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 04/10/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 76