United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is the respondent's Motion to Dismiss as
Moot, filed September 18, 2019 (doc. 9). Based on the
relevant findings and applicable law, the motion should be
GRANTED, and the petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, should be
DISMISSED as moot.
Lainez-Diaz (Petitioner) is an alien under final order of
removal who was detained in the Prairieland Detention Center
in Alvarado, Texas, when his petition for writ of habeas
corpus seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was
received on July 15, 2019. (See doc. 3.) He claimed
that his order of removal became final on November 12, 2018,
and the removal period ended on that date, but he had yet to
receive any travel documents from the Colombian Embassy.
(Id. at 3.) Petitioner requested (1) a declaration
that his continued detention was a violation of the Fifth
Amendment, (2) release under an order of supervision, (3) a
declaration that his continued detention without a hearing is
a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, and (4) a hearing
before an immigration judge. (Id. at 10.)
September 18, 2019, the government moved to
dismiss the petition as moot because Petitioner
had been released on supervision on August 21, 2019, and it
attached copies of the release notification and order of
supervision showing that he was released on that date.
(See docs. 9, 9-1.) The copy of the order setting a
deadline for Petitioner to respond to the motion has been
returned as undeliverable because he is no longer in ICE
custody. (See docs. 10, 11.)
respondent moves to dismiss the § 2241 petition under
Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (doc.
9 at 1.)
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure challenges a federal court's subject
matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; without
jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and statute, they
lack the power to adjudicate claims. Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(citations omitted). They “must presume that a suit
lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking
the federal forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). The district
court may dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
based on the petition alone, the petition supplemented by
undisputed facts in the record; or the petition supplemented
by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of
disputed facts. See Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d
404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981). The respondent has tendered copies
of documents in support of its argument that this case is
moot, and Petitioner has not responded or otherwise disputed
respondent next argues that the § 2241 petition is moot
because Petitioner has been released on supervision, which is
all of the relief that he requested. (doc. 9 at 1.)
III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial
Power,' that is, federal-court jurisdiction, to
‘Cases' and ‘Controversies.'”
United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445
U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot “when the
issues presented are no longer ‘live' or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)).
This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all
stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.
. . . The parties must continue to have a ‘personal
stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit. This means that,
throughout the litigation, the plaintiff “must have
suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable
to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citations
omitted). If a controversy becomes moot, the case is
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lewis
v. Continental ...