Abdi v. Barr et al, No. 6:2019cv06156 - Document 7 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER granting 3 Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. The petition is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 5/17/2019. (MFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Abdi v. Barr et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SALAT SURAW ABDI, Petitioner, Case # 19-CV-6156-FPG v. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., Respondents. Pro se Petitioner Salat Suraw Abdi brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. ECF No. 1. Respondents have notified the Court that on April 19, 2019, immigration authorities released Petitioner from detention pursuant to an Order of Supervision. ECF No. 3-1 at 1; see also ECF No. 6 at 1. Respondents now move to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner’s release renders the case moot. ECF No. 3. Because the Court agrees, Respondents’ motion is GRANTED. “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Cuong Le v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-1339, 2018 WL 5620290, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018). To the extent a habeas petition challenges only the alien’s continued detention, the petition becomes moot once the alien is released from custody pursuant to an Order of Supervision. See, e.g., Hubacek v. Holder, No. 13-CV-1085, 2014 WL 1096949, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2014) (collecting cases); Masoud v. Filip, No. 08-CV-6345, 2009 WL 223006, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009) (same). This is because the alien has obtained the relief 1 Dockets.Justia.com sought—“release from [immigration] custody.” 1 Emeni v. Holder, No. 13-CV-6404, 2014 WL 347799, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2014). Accordingly, Petitioner’s challenge to his continued detention has become moot in light of his release, and his petition is dismissed. See id. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 17, 2019 Rochester, New York ______________________________________ HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR. Chief Judge United States District Court 1 In his prayer for relief, Petitioner requests a stay of removal. ECF No. 1 at 11. That request appears to be redundant; Petitioner also alleges in his petition that the Second Circuit has already granted his motion for a stay of removal. See id. at 4. Moreover, this Court does not have jurisdiction to stay Petitioner’s removal. See McRae v. Sessions, No. 16-CV-6489, 2018 WL 5960858, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2018). 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.
