United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
MICHAEL A. TELESCA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Maximiliano Gonzalez (“Petitioner”), an alien
under a final order of removal, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the basis that his
detention in the custody of the Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”), Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) pending his removal from the
United States, violates his constitutional right to due
process. Respondents (hereinafter, “the
Government”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition as
moot (ECF #8) as a result of Petitioner's deportation
from the United States.
reasons discussed herein, the Court grants Respondent's
Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the Petition as moot.
case-or-controversy requirement in Article III, § 2, of
the Constitution, is carried “through all stages of
federal judicial proceedings” and means that
“[t]he parties must continue to have a ‘personal
stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit.” Lewis v.
Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990);
accord Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)
(citations omitted). In other words, throughout all phases of
a lawsuit, the plaintiff “must have suffered, or be
threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant
and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.” Lewis, 484 U.S. at 477.
habeas petition is based upon a criminal conviction, the
cause is not rendered moot by the petitioner's release
from custody, provided that petitioner continues to suffer
“collateral consequences” of the conviction upon
which the now-ended incarceration was based.
Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. Here, Petitioner's
habeas petition challenges only the lawfulness of his
administrative detention by DHS. The sole relief Petitioner
seeks is release from custody. As the Petition is based only on
Petitioner's allegedly unlawful detention in DHS custody,
and not on the underlying removal order from which the
detention flowed, the issue is whether Petitioner suffers
from any “collateral consequences” of detention
now that he is no longer “in custody” of DHS.
Denis v. DHS/ICE of Buffalo, N.Y., 634 F.Supp.2d
338, 340-41 (W.D.N.Y. 2009).
district courts in this Circuit to have considered the issue
have found that where an alien challenging his detention
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is released during the pendency
of his petition under an order of supervision, the petition
is rendered moot.” Denis, 634 F.Supp.2d at 341
(collecting cases). Likewise, a petition is rendered moot
when an alien is released from detention upon the execution
of an order of removal. See, e.g.,
Singh v. Mule, 07-CV-6387-CJS-VEB, 2009 WL 204618,
at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009) (“By virtue of his
removal from the United States, Singh has been released from
his detention in administrative custody of DHS. This release
from detention was the only relief he requested in his
petition pending before this Court. Thus, since there is no
effectual relief that this Court can now provide to Singh,
his habeas petition has been rendered moot.”) (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
DHS effectuated Petitioner's removal from the United
States on December 11, 2019. See Respondents'
Memorandum of Law (ECF #9) at 2 & n.1 (citing Declaration
of David M. Coriell, Esq., ¶8 & Exhibit 1 (Warrant
of Removal)). In so doing, DHS necessarily released
Petitioner from administrative custody. Where, as here, the
relief sought in the Petition-release from custody-has been
granted, the Petition no longer presents a live case or
controversy within the meaning of Article III, § 3 of
the Constitution. Consequently, the Court must dismiss the
Petition based on the absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,
477-78 (1990) (“To sustain [federal] jurisdiction in
the present case, it is not enough that a dispute was very
much alive when suit was filed. . . .”).
foregoing reasons, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF
#8) is granted, and the Petition (ECF #1) is dismissed as
moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.