Opinion
4:21-CV-41-CDL-MSH
04-28-2021
Y.V.A., Petitioner, v. Warden, STEWART DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 28 U.S.C. § 2241
STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The Court received Petitioner's pro se application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) on March 12, 2021. Pending before the Court is Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) Petitioner's habeas application, which was filed on March 23, 2021. In his habeas application, Petitioner seeks an order “releasing [P]etitioner under an order of supervision.” Pet. 5, ECF No. 1. In support of their motion to dismiss, Respondents filed a copy Petitioner's order of supervision showing he was ordered released from Respondents' custody on March 17, 2021. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, at 1-4, ECF No. 6-1. Because Petitioner has been released from their custody, Respondents now contend that Petitioner's pending habeas application is moot and should be dismissed as such. Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 6. The Court agrees and recommends dismissal of this case as moot.
“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335- 36 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed.” Id. at 1336.
Petitioner has been released from Respondents' physical custody. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, at 1-4. While Respondents no longer detain Petitioner in their physical custody, Petitioner remains in Respondents' legal custody, as “the Supreme Court has found that the in custody requirement is satisfied where restrictions are placed on a petitioner's freedom of action or movement.” Alvarez v. Holder, 454 Fed.Appx. 769, 772 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240-43 (1963); Spencer v. Kenma, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998)). The Court ordered Petitioner to respond to Respondents' motion on March 23, 2021. Order 1-2, ECF No. 8. His mail has been returned as undeliverable (ECF Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11), he failed to respond, and he has not challenged his supervised release. Thus, Petitioner does not contest the conditions of his supervised release such that this Court could maintain jurisdiction over his habeas petition. See Alvarez, 454 Fed.Appx. at 772; see also Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A, at 1, 3. Since the Court can no longer afford Petitioner any meaningful relief, the case is moot and “dismissal is required because mootness is jurisdictional.” Al Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336.
Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) be GRANTED and Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to file a new § 2241 petition in the future if a change in his circumstances occurs. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy hereof. The district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED.