Bartley v. Hassell et al, No. 4:2016cv01370 - Document 24 (N.D. Ala. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 06/16/2017. (KBB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bartley v. Hassell et al Doc. 24 FILED 2017 Jun-16 AM 08:39 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION JULIAN BARTLEY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) WARDEN SCOTT HASSELL, et al., ) ) ) Respondents. Civil Action Number 4:16-cv-01370-AKK-HNJ MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 22, 2016, Julian Bartley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. At the time he filed his petition, Bartley, a native of Jamaica, was incarcerated at the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) facility at Gadsden, Alabama. In his petition, Bartley alleged that he was being illegally detained by ICE pending his deportation to Jamaica. See generally doc. 1. On May 25, 2017, Bartley was released from ICE custody and removed from the United States to Jamaica. Docs. 23; 23-1. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot, since Bartley is no longer in ICE custody. Doc. 23. After consideration of the record in this case and respondents’ motion to dismiss, the court finds that Bartley’s removal to Jamaica has rendered his habeas corpus petition moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003) Dockets.Justia.com (citations omitted); Soliman v. U.S. ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the court finds that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply in this case. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982). Therefore, because there is no longer any relief that can be granted to Bartley, his petition is due to be dismissed as moot. A final judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith. DONE the 16th day of June, 2017. _________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
