Acheampong v. Hassell, et al, No. 4:2017cv00434 - Document 9 (N.D. Ala. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 06/20/2017. (KBB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Acheampong v. Hassell, et al Doc. 9 FILED 2017 Jun-20 AM 08:52 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION RICHMOND ACHEAMPONG, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) WARDEN SCOTT HASSELL, et al., ) ) ) Respondents. Civil Action Number 4:17-cv-00434-AKK-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 20, 2017, Richmond Acheampong 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, Acheampong, a native of Ghana, was incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center, in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In his petition, Acheampong alleged that he was being illegally detained by ICE pending his deportation to Ghana. See generally doc. 1. On June 13, 2017, Acheampong was released from ICE custody and removed from the United States to Ghana. Docs. 8; 8-1. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot, since Acheampong is no longer in ICE custody. Doc. 8. After consideration of the record in this case and respondents’ motion to dismiss, the court finds that Acheampong’s removal to Ghana has rendered his habeas corpus petition moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. Dockets.Justia.com 2003) (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 Acheampong, his petition is due to be dismissed as moot. A final judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith. DONE the 20th 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.
