Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RAYMOND SCOTT,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00228-MP-GRJ

DAVID HARVEY, et al,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner initiated this case by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. The petition challenges Petitioner’s continued

detention in the Wakulla County Jail pending removal to the Bahamas pursuant to an

order of an immigration judge. Petitioner does not challenge the validity of the removal

order. Id. at 2. The Court directed service of the petition on Petitioner’s custodian and

on the United States Attorney General. Now pending before the Court is Doc. 11,

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as moot because Petitioner was removed

from the United States to the Bahamas on July 28, 2010. As support for the motion,

Respondent has submitted a copy of Petitioner’s executed Warrant of

Removal/Deportation. Doc. 11, Exh. 1.

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

consideration of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies’. . . . In turn, the ‘case or controversy’

constraint imposes on federal courts a ‘dual limitation’ known as ‘justiciability,’” a
Page 2 of 3

doctrine that “‘prevents courts from encroaching on the powers of the elected branches

of government and guarantees that courts consider only matters presented in an actual

adversarial context.’” 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.’ . . . ‘a case is moot when it no longer presents a live

controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.’” Id. (citations

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. The alien was removed from the United States while the appeal was

pending. In light of his removal, the Court found that it was “abundantly clear” that the

appeal was moot because the relief sought by the alien – release from detention

pending removal, in addition to other relief – could not be effected by any order from the

Court since the alien was no longer being detained. Id. at 1243. The Court further

determined that there was no basis for invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine

for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review, because there was

“absolutely no reason to believe that he will again be detained . . . under the same

circumstances[.]” Id. 

In light of this authority, the Court concludes that the instant habeas corpus

petition is moot. Since Petitioner has been removed from the United States to the

Bahamas, no order from this Court directing his release from detention pending final

removal could have any effect. See id. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED

Case No: 4:10-cv-00228-MP-GRJ
Page 3 of 3

that Defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition as moot, Doc. 11, be GRANTED.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 15 day of September, 2010.

th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with

a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 4:10-cv-00228-MP-GRJ