Opinion ID: 169607
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges to Continued D etention

Text: M r. Vaupel also contends that his continued detention in ICE custody for over two years, w ithout an opportunity for supervised release, is contrary to statute and violates his constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. He argues as w ell that the district court erred in denying his request for interim relief from detention. After making these contentions in his opening appeal brief, M r. Vaupel was released from detention upon his removal to Australia in February 2007. W e must therefore consider whether these claims regarding his previous detention are now moot. See Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002). -8- Our inquiry then becomes whether Appellant meets one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine. W e will not dismiss a petition as moot if (1) secondary or collateral injuries survive after resolution of the primary injury; (2) the issue is deemed a wrong capable of repetition yet evading review; (3) the defendant voluntarily ceases an allegedly illegal practice but is free to resume it at any time; or (4) it is a properly certified class action suit. Id. (holding that claim in habeas petition for release from detention was moot after petitioner w as granted supervised release) (quotations omitted). Based on the record before us, none of these exceptions applies in this case. Notably, M r. Vaupel did not make a claim for damages in his habeas petition, seeking instead only a release from custody and declaratory relief. See R., Doc. 1 at 19. Thus, he has not demonstrated any secondary or collateral injury surviving his detention. See Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that challenge to detention without opportunity for bond was mooted by deportation where petitioner did not seek monetary damages for loss of liberty or consortium); see also Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases where habeas claims were fully resolved and rendered moot by release from custody). W e decline to issue an advisory opinion regarding the legality of M r. Vaupel’s detention, “because a declaratory judgment on that question would have no meaningful effect on the [Department of Homeland Security’s] future conduct towards [him].” Ferry, 457 F.3d at 1132. -9-