Edwards v. Ashcroft

Second Circuit

Edwards v. Ashcroft

126 F. App'x 4

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 2005

DocketNo. 04-1314-PR

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 F. App'x 4 (Edwards v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. Ashcroft, 126 F. App'x 4 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is VACATED.

Petitioner-Appellant Alexis Milton Edwards (“Edwards”) appeals from the judgment of the district court (Gleeson, J.) finding his habeas petition to be moot. In that petition, Edwards challenged certain aspects of his immigration detention as contrary to the statutes and regulations governing Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. During the pendency of this appeal, another panel of this court vacated Edwards’s order of removal, and ordered that he be awarded § 212(c) relief. See Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 312 (2d Cir.2004). As a result of this decision, Edwards was released from immigration detention on January 19, 2005. Edwards’s release renders the issues presented in this appeal moot, and, we must dismiss his appeal. See New York City Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 969 F.2d 1430, 1433 (2d Cir.1992) (a case which becomes moot during the pendency of an appeal must be [5]*5dismissed as moot). In accordance with our usual procedure, we VACATE the unreviewed decision of the district court, and remand to that court with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the action. See, e.g., Perez v. Greiner, 296 F.3d 123, 126-127 & n. 7 (2d Cir.2002). The appeal is DISMISSED. Edwards’s motions for the appointment of counsel and requesting oral argument are DENIED as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is VACATED.

Petitioner-Appellant Alexis Milton Edwards (“Edwards”) appeals from the judgment of the district court (Gleeson, J.) finding his habeas petition to be moot. In that petition, Edwards challenged certain aspects of his immigration detention as contrary to the statutes and regulations governing Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. During the pendency of this appeal, another panel of this court vacated Edwards’s order of removal, and ordered that he be awarded § 212(c) relief. See Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 312 (2d Cir.2004). As a result of this decision, Edwards was released from immigration detention on January 19, 2005. Edwards’s release renders the issues presented in this appeal moot, and, we must dismiss his appeal. See New York City Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 969 F.2d 1430, 1433 (2d Cir.1992) (a case which becomes moot during the pendency of an appeal must be [5]*5dismissed as moot). In accordance with our usual procedure, we VACATE the unreviewed decision of the district court, and remand to that court with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the action. See, e.g., Perez v. Greiner, 296 F.3d 123, 126-127 & n. 7 (2d Cir.2002). The appeal is DISMISSED. Edwards’s motions for the appointment of counsel and requesting oral argument are DENIED as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 F. App'x 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-ashcroft-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack