Mohammed v. Holder et al, No. 4:2014cv00842 - Document 9 (N.D. Ala. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION that the motion to dismiss is due to be GRANTED, and the petitionfor a writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 6/20/2014. (AHI ) Modified on 6/20/2014 (AHI).

Download PDF
FILED 2014 Jun-20 PM 02:52 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION ALSHROUKH MOHAMMED Petitioner, vs. ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 4:14-00842-CLS-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which petitioner, Alshroukh Mohammed acting pro se, has sought to challenge his continued detention pending removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. See generally, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this action as moot on the grounds petitioner has been removed from the United States. (Doc. 8). In support of their motion to dismiss, respondents have filed a copy of an unsworn declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 by a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility at Gadsden, Alabama. (Doc. 8-1). Such declaration shows petitioner was removed from the United States to Palestine on June 10, 2014. (Id.). Because petitioner has been removed, the Court can no longer provide meaningful relief, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) is due to be GRANTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is due to be DISMISSED. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 20th day of June, 2014. ______________________________ United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.