UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ABDULAI BUNDU KAMARA, Case No. 1:17-cv-679

Petitioner,

Black, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

JEFF SESSIONS, et al., REPORT AND

Respondents. RECOMMENDATION

This habeas corpus action brought pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is before the 

Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 23). 

On August 15, 2017, petitioner, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, filed a petition for 

habeas corpus challenging his continued detention by the United States Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) pursuant to a final order of removal. (See Doc. 1). 

Petitioner was taken into ICE custody on or about February 3, 2017. Petitioner argues that his 

continued detention is unlawful because he has been detained for more than six months with no 

significant likelihood of his actual removal, in violation of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 

(2001).1

 Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody. (Doc. 1 at PageID 9). 

On February 6, 2018, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of 

jurisdiction. In support of the motion, respondents include the Declaration of Oscar Blair, Jr., a 

Deportation Officer for the Enforcement and Removal Office of ICE. Blair attests that petitioner 

was removed from the United States to Sierra Leone on January 23, 2018. (Doc. 23-1, Blair

Decl. at PageID 77, ¶ 5).

 1 In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that indefinite detention of an alien who has been ordered removed was not 

authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and created a presumptive rule that after six months of custody an alien should be 

released if there is “good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 

future.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00679-TSB-SKB Doc #: 25 Filed: 03/02/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 84
2

Petitioner does not challenge his removal order in this case. He instead contests his 

indefinite detention pending removal. (See Doc. 1). In these circumstances, petitioner’s January 

23, 2018 removal renders this action moot and deprives the Court of jurisdiction. See Novikova 

v. Prendes, Case No. 3:06-cv-0039, 2006 WL 1424255, at *2 (N.D. Texas May 24, 2006) 

(finding that the removal of a petitioner challenging her detention pending removal deprived the 

district court of jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition). See also Felix v. Bureau of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 3:05-cv-2211, 2007 WL 951452, at *1 (M.D. Pa. 

Mar. 27, 2007) (“When an alien subject to removal challenges only his detention pending 

removal, his release pending removal, whether or not conditional, entails no collateral 

consequences. It renders the petition moot because he has received all the relief he sought and 

would have been entitled to.”); see also Kahn v. Attorney General, Case Nos. 1:15-cv-2014,

1:16-cv-85, at *2 (N.D. Ohio May 17, 2016) (“As Petitioner has received his requested relief by 

being released from custody on an order of supervision, there is no longer an active case or 

controversy.”) (Report and Recommendation), adopted, 2016 WL 4009885 (N.D. Ohio June 25, 

2016); Willix v. Holder, No. 1:11-cv-894, 2012 WL 463830, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Jan 24, 2012) 

(finding habeas petition moot where petitioner seeking release pending removal is released 

pursuant to an order of supervision) (Report and Recommendation), adopted, 2012 WL 463825 

(W.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2012). 

Therefore, because petitioner has been removed, the undersigned recommends that 

respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) be GRANTED and the petition be dismissed. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

Stephanie K. Bowman 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:17-cv-00679-TSB-SKB Doc #: 25 Filed: 03/02/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 85
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ABDULAI BUNDU KAMARA, Case No. 1:17-cv-679

Petitioner,

Black, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

JEFF SESSIONS, et al., REPORT AND

Respondents. RECOMMENDATION

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of 

the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected 

to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report 

and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral 

hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such 

portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the 

assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections 

WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in 

accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

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

Case: 1:17-cv-00679-TSB-SKB Doc #: 25 Filed: 03/02/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 86