Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lainez-Diaz v. Johnson

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

October 3, 2019

KEVIN LAINEZ-DIAZ, A#200-069-449, Petitioner,
v.
JIMMY JOHNSON, Facility Administrator, Prairieland Detention Center, Respondent.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

          IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [1]

         Before 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Kevin 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.)[2] 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.)

         On September 18, 2019, the government moved to dismiss[3] 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.)

         II. JURISDICTION

         The respondent moves to dismiss the § 2241 petition under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (doc. 9 at 1.)

         A. Legal Standard

         A 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 its evidence.

         B. Mootness

         The 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.)

         “Article 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 judicial decision.”

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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.