Jimenez v. Avilez, No. 2:2017cv00872 - Document 14 (D.N.J. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 3/22/17. (cm, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jimenez v. Avilez Doc. 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ____________________________________ : FELIPE MIGUEL JIMENEZ, : : Civil Action No. 17-872 (JMV) Petitioner, : : v. : OPINION : TISH CASTILLO, : : Respondent. : ____________________________________: VAZQUEZ, United States District Judge On January 31, 2017, the United States District Court, Southern District of New York transferred to this Court Felipe Jimenez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1), challenging his prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). This Court ordered Respondent to answer the petition. (ECF No. 6.) Respondent submitted an I-205 form, showing that Petitioner was removed from the United States on February 21, 2017. (ECF No. 8-1.) Respondent contends the habeas petition is moot. (ECF No. 8.) A habeas petition “generally becomes moot when [a petitioner] is released from custody” because there is no longer “an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Vasquez v. Aviles, 639 F. App’x 898, 902 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 2005)). The present petition no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution because Petitioner is no longer detained by ICE. See id. (finding petition moot where there were no collateral consequences that could be addressed by success on the petition after removal) (citing 1 Dockets.Justia.com Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007)). Therefore, the petition is dismissed as moot. An appropriate Order follows. Date: March 22, 2017 At Newark, New Jersey s/ John Michael Vazquez JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ 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.
