Francis v. Barr et al, No. 6:2019cv06282 - Document 10 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER granting 8 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 7/15/2019. A copy of the NEF and order have been mailed to Petitioner's last known address. (MFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Francis v. Barr et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LLOYD THOMPSON FRANCIS, Petitioner, Case # 19-CV-6282-FPG v. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., Respondents. Petitioner Lloyd Thompson Francis 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 July 9, 2019, Petitioner was removed from the United States. See ECF No. 8-3 at 3. Respondents now move to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner’s removal renders the case moot. ECF No. 8. 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 petitioner is removed. See, e.g., Torres v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-1344, 2018 WL 5621475, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018) (collecting cases); Garcia v. Holder, No. 12 Civ. 3792, 2013 WL 6508832, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2013) (same). This is because the relief sought in the “habeas proceeding—namely, release from continued detention in administrative custody—has been granted.” Arthur v. DHS/ICE, 713 F. Supp. 2d 179, 182 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). Accordingly, Petitioner’s challenge to his continued detention has become moot in light of his removal from the United States, and his petition is dismissed. See id. 1 Dockets.Justia.com CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED, and the petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 15, 2019 Rochester, New York ______________________________________ HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR. Chief Judge United States District Court 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.
