Umar v. Etowah County Detention Center, No. 4:2018cv00261 - Document 9 (N.D. Ala. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 5/11/2018. (PSM)

Download PDF
Umar v. Etowah County Detention Center Doc. 9 FILED 2018 May-11 PM 03:29 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION ABDUL MALIK UMAR, Petitioner, v. JEFF SESSIONS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:18-cv-00261-LSC-HNJ MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner initially filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking release from detention pending deportation to Ghana. (Doc. 1). On April 17, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation that the petitioner’s request for habeas released was due to be granted and the petitioner released from custody, based on the respondent’s “Notice of NonOpposition.” (Doc. 7). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their respective rights to file objections to the recommendation. (Id., at 2). The respondent then filed a “Notice of Petitioner’s Change in Status” statin that ICE released the petitioner from custody on April 19, 2018. (Doc. 8). After consideration of the record in this action, the report and recommendation, and the respondent’s Notice of Petitioner’s Change in Status, the court finds that petitioner’s release on an order of supervision has rendered his habeas corpus petition moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003); Soliman Dockets.Justia.com v. United States ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the court finds that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply in this case. See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982); Carafas v. La Vallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968). Therefore, the court is of the opinion this action is due to be DISMISSED as MOOT. A separate Order will be entered. DONE and ORDERED on May 11, 2018. _____________________________ L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge 160704

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.