Haji Fofana, et al. v. Bruce Scott, et al.

W.D. Washington

Haji Fofana, et al. v. Bruce Scott, et al.

DecidedNovember 26, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01417

StatusUnknown

This text of Haji Fofana, et al. v. Bruce Scott, et al. (Haji Fofana, et al. v. Bruce Scott, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haji Fofana, et al. v. Bruce Scott, et al., (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 HAJI FOFANA, et al.

9 Petitioner/Plaintiffs, Case No. C25-1417-JHC-MLP

10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 BRUCE SCOTT, et al.,

12 Respondents/Defendants

13 Petitioner Haji Fofana (“Petitioner”) and his wife Fatoumatta Tunkara (“Plaintiff,” 14 collectively “Petitioner/Plaintiffs”) initiated this action in July 2025 when they filed, through 15 counsel, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and for writ of mandamus, and a complaint for 16 declaratory and injunctive relief. (Dkt. # 1.) At the time of filing, Petitioner was in the custody of 17 U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center 18 (“NWIPC”). He sought habeas relief on the grounds that his ongoing detention had become 19 indefinite within the meaning of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and he requested 20 release. (See id.) On October 1, 2025, Petitioner was removed from the United States to his 21 country of origin, Sierra Leone. (Dkt. ## 18-19.) 22 Petitioner/Plaintiffs also sought, by way of this action, an order compelling U.S. 23 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to schedule interviews and adjudicate 1 Plaintiff’s pending I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, and Petitioner’s pending I-485 Application 2 for Adjustment of Status, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and Declaratory 3 Judgment Act. (See dkt. # 1.) On September 5, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ request to

4 hold the mandamus claims in abeyance until November 10, 2025, to allow USCIS time to 5 adjudicate the applications. (Dkt. # 13.) On November 10, 2025, the Government reported that 6 USCIS had adjudicated and denied both applications on November 3, 2025. (See dkt. ## 22-23.) 7 Although the parties had stipulated that Petitioner/Plaintiffs would voluntarily dismiss the 8 mandamus claims once the applications were adjudicated (see dkt. # 13), this has not occurred 9 (see dkt. # 22 at 1-2). Notably, Petitioner/Plaintiffs were initially represented by counsel when 10 the stipulation was made, but counsel has since withdrawn, and they are now proceeding pro se. 11 (See dkt. #17.) The Government indicates it attempted to contact Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ regarding 12 dismissal but received no response. (Dkt. # 22 at 1-2.) The Government maintains that the 13 mandamus claims are nonetheless moot. (See dkt. # 22-23.)

14 Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, 15 ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). “For a habeas 16 petition to continue to present a live controversy after the petitioner’s release or deportation . . . 17 there must be some remaining ‘collateral consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the 18 petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). Because Petitioner’s federal 19 habeas petition sought only release from detention, and he has now been removed from the 20 United States, his habeas claims are fully resolved. See id. at 1065. Accordingly, there are no 21 collateral consequences this Court could address, and Petitioner’s habeas petition should be 22 dismissed as moot. See id. Similarly, because USCIS has now adjudicated both Plaintiff’s I-130 23 Petition and Petitioner’s I-485 Application, the mandamus claims are moot as well. 1 Accordingly, this Court recommends that the pending petition for writ of habeas corpus 2 and for writ of mandamus, and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (dkt. # 1) be 3 dismissed with prejudice. This Court further recommends that the Government’s return to

4 Petitioner’s federal habeas petition (dkt. # 8) be stricken as moot. A proposed Order accompanies 5 this Report and Recommendation. 6 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and 7 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 8 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 9 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 10 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 11 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be 12 ready for consideration by the District Judge on December 17, 2025. 13 DATED this 26th day of November, 2025.

14 A 15

MICHELLE L. PETERSON 16 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23

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

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 HAJI FOFANA, et al.

9 Petitioner/Plaintiffs, Case No. C25-1417-JHC-MLP

10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 BRUCE SCOTT, et al.,

12 Respondents/Defendants

13 Petitioner Haji Fofana (“Petitioner”) and his wife Fatoumatta Tunkara (“Plaintiff,” 14 collectively “Petitioner/Plaintiffs”) initiated this action in July 2025 when they filed, through 15 counsel, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and for writ of mandamus, and a complaint for 16 declaratory and injunctive relief. (Dkt. # 1.) At the time of filing, Petitioner was in the custody of 17 U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center 18 (“NWIPC”). He sought habeas relief on the grounds that his ongoing detention had become 19 indefinite within the meaning of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and he requested 20 release. (See id.) On October 1, 2025, Petitioner was removed from the United States to his 21 country of origin, Sierra Leone. (Dkt. ## 18-19.) 22 Petitioner/Plaintiffs also sought, by way of this action, an order compelling U.S. 23 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to schedule interviews and adjudicate 1 Plaintiff’s pending I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, and Petitioner’s pending I-485 Application 2 for Adjustment of Status, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and Declaratory 3 Judgment Act. (See dkt. # 1.) On September 5, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ request to

4 hold the mandamus claims in abeyance until November 10, 2025, to allow USCIS time to 5 adjudicate the applications. (Dkt. # 13.) On November 10, 2025, the Government reported that 6 USCIS had adjudicated and denied both applications on November 3, 2025. (See dkt. ## 22-23.) 7 Although the parties had stipulated that Petitioner/Plaintiffs would voluntarily dismiss the 8 mandamus claims once the applications were adjudicated (see dkt. # 13), this has not occurred 9 (see dkt. # 22 at 1-2). Notably, Petitioner/Plaintiffs were initially represented by counsel when 10 the stipulation was made, but counsel has since withdrawn, and they are now proceeding pro se. 11 (See dkt. #17.) The Government indicates it attempted to contact Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ regarding 12 dismissal but received no response. (Dkt. # 22 at 1-2.) The Government maintains that the 13 mandamus claims are nonetheless moot. (See dkt. # 22-23.)

14 Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, 15 ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). “For a habeas 16 petition to continue to present a live controversy after the petitioner’s release or deportation . . . 17 there must be some remaining ‘collateral consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the 18 petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). Because Petitioner’s federal 19 habeas petition sought only release from detention, and he has now been removed from the 20 United States, his habeas claims are fully resolved. See id. at 1065. Accordingly, there are no 21 collateral consequences this Court could address, and Petitioner’s habeas petition should be 22 dismissed as moot. See id. Similarly, because USCIS has now adjudicated both Plaintiff’s I-130 23 Petition and Petitioner’s I-485 Application, the mandamus claims are moot as well. 1 Accordingly, this Court recommends that the pending petition for writ of habeas corpus 2 and for writ of mandamus, and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (dkt. # 1) be 3 dismissed with prejudice. This Court further recommends that the Government’s return to

4 Petitioner’s federal habeas petition (dkt. # 8) be stricken as moot. A proposed Order accompanies 5 this Report and Recommendation. 6 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and 7 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 8 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 9 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 10 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 11 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be 12 ready for consideration by the District Judge on December 17, 2025. 13 DATED this 26th day of November, 2025.

14 A 15

MICHELLE L. PETERSON 16 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Haji Fofana, et al. v. Bruce Scott, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haji-fofana-et-al-v-bruce-scott-et-al-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack