Santos v. Garland et al, No. 6:2021cv06446 - Document 9 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: The petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 12/22/2021. copy of order and NEF mailed to petitioner's last known address (MFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Santos v. Garland et al Doc. 9 Case 6:21-cv-06446-FPG Document 9 Filed 12/22/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Francisco Santos, Petitioner, Case # 21-CV-6446-FPG v. DECISION AND ORDER Merrick B. Garland, et al., Respondents. Pro se Petitioner Francisco Santos 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. On September 2, 2021, Respondents moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds and indicated that Petitioner’s removal was “presently scheduled to be removed in early September 2021.” ECF No. 5-3 at 7. On October 12, 2021, Respondents confirmed that Petitioner had been removed from the United States on September 7, 2021. ECF No. 7 at 1. Given Petitioner’s removal, the Court sua sponte dismisses this action as moot. See Bourdon v. Walker, 453 F. Supp. 2d 594, 599 n.13 (N.D.N.Y. 2006) (“Federal courts must consider sua sponte matters, such as whether an action has become moot, that touch upon the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”). “[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 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 6:21-cv-06446-FPG Document 9 Filed 12/22/21 Page 2 of 2 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, and his petition is dismissed. See id. As a result, Respondents’ motion to dismiss is also rendered moot. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 22, 2021 Rochester, New York ______________________________________ HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR. District 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.
