UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
DAMION BROMF IELD, ) ) P la in t if f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1639 (RM C ) ) JULIE MYERS , e t al

. , ) ) De fend ant s. )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff D amion Br omfield filed this action for injunctive re lief while de tained at the Depa rtment of Homeland Security ’s Northwe st Detention Center ( “NWDC”) in Ta coma, Washington. He challeng es the policies of I m m i gra t ion and Customs Enforceme nt (“I CE”) that alleg edly prohibit detainee s from possessing pens in their c ells and re ceivingnewspa per or mag azine subscriptions. M r. Br o mfield names a s defe ndants five hig h-leve l I CE officials a nd former DHS Secre tary Michae l Chertoff. The defe ndants have moved collectively to dismi ss the complaint under F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 1) a s mo ot [Dkt . No. 11 ]. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he pa rt ie s’
su bmi ssi on s, the Court

wi ll g ra nt t he De fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to d ism iss
. Under Rule 12(b)(1) , a cour

t has “an affir

mative obl iga

tion to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictio nal authority .” J on es v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 21 F . Su

pp .2 d 1 , 5 (D .D .C. 2004) (c itation and internal quotation marks omitted). Be cause Article I I Iof the U.S. Constitut ion limit s fede ral c ourts to deciding“ac tual, ong oing c ontroversie s,” Honig v. Doe , 484 U.S. 305, 317, 108 S.Ct . 592, 98 L .Ed. 2 d 686 (1988), a court must ref

rain fr om decidinga ca se if eve nts have trans p i re d such that the de cision will neither “pr esently aff ect the pa

rties' rig hts nor have amore-tha

n-spec ulative cha

nce of aff ectingthem in the future.” Cla r ke v. Un i t ed

S tates , 915 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citation and internal quotation ma rks omitted). A case is moot if a de fenda nt can de monstrate that two conditions have been met: (1) interim relief or eve nts have c ompletely and irrevoc ably era dicated the ef fec ts of the alleg ed violation; and (2) the re is no re asonable expectation that the alleg ed wr ong (s) will be re peate d. Do e v . H arris , 696 F.2d 109, 111 ( D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing Cou nty of L os An ge le

s v . D av is , 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct
. 1379, 59 L .Ed.2d 642 (1979)) . When bo th co nd iti on s ar e satis fi e d, the c a se is moo t bec a us e ne ith e r part

y ha s a le g a lly c og niza ble int e re st in the final dete rmination of the under lying f acts a nd law. Se e id . Whil e a d ef en d ant' s voluntary
cessation of a challeng ed pra ctice doe s not deprive a fede ral c ourt of jurisdiction, Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., I nc. , 528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.C t. 693, 145 L .Ed.2d 610 (2000),

“ [t]he c a se may

ne ve rt he le ss b e moo t if

the de fe nd ant c an de mon str a te that ‘t he re is n o r e a so na

ble expectation that the wrongwill be repe ated.’ ” United States v. W .T. Grant Co. , 345 U.S. 629, 633, 7 3 S
. C t . 8 9 4 , 9 7 L
. E d
. 1 3 0 3 (1 9 5 3 ) ( qu o t i n g United St ates v. Aluminum Co. of Am. , 148 F.2d 416, 448 (2d Cir. 1945)).

The De fenda

nts asser t that the case i s moot beca use Mr. Bromfield ha s been r elea sed
on ba il a nd the re fo re is no lon g e r at NWD C. Mo re ov e r, the y have sh ow n th a t e ve n if

Mr . B ro mf

ie ld
wer e re turned to the fac ility , the alleg ed depr ivations are not c apable of re petition because detainee s
a t NWDC ar e a l l o w e d

t o p o s s e s s p e n s an d

t o s u b s c r i b e t o p u

b l i c a t i o n s s u

b j e c tt o r e a s o n able g uid e lin e s. De f. ’s Ex. B , D e c laratio n o f Th oma s P. Gi le s ¶ ¶ 4 -5 . A c c or din g ly , th e de fe nd ants ’ R ule 12(b)( 1) motion to dism iss is gra nted. A separ ate Orde r acc ompanies this Memor andum Opinion.

Date : F e br

ua ry 13 , 2 00 9 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge