John Anthony Taylor v. Warden Lemar Oddo, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick B. Garland, Tony Bryson

W.D. Pennsylvania

John Anthony Taylor v. Warden Lemar Oddo, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick B. Garland, Tony Bryson

DecidedMarch 23, 2026

Docket3:24-cv-00119

StatusUnknown

This text of John Anthony Taylor v. Warden Lemar Oddo, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick B. Garland, Tony Bryson (John Anthony Taylor v. Warden Lemar Oddo, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick B. Garland, Tony Bryson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Anthony Taylor v. Warden Lemar Oddo, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick B. Garland, Tony Bryson, (W.D. Pa. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHNSTOWN JOHN ANTHONY TAYLOR, ) ) Petitioner ) 3:24-CV-00119-RAL ) VS. ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) Chief United States Magistrate Judge WARDEN LEMAR ODDO, ) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, MERRICK ) MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING B. GARLAND, TONY BRYSON, ) AS MOOT PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION TO Respondents ) ENFORCE WRIT ) ) IN RE: ECF NOS. 8, 38 )

Petitioner John Anthony Taylor (“Petitioner”) is a citizen of Jamaica. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Petitioner into custody in July of 2023. He filed the pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his immigration detention at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center and requesting a bond hearing. ECF No. 8, generally. Counsel later entered

an appearance on his behalf. See ECF No. 15. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. On March 20, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report advising that Petitioner had been removed from the United States on or about October 16, 2025. Based on the parties’ status report, the Court will dismiss the petition as moot. Article III limits federal judicial power to actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. A petitioner must, at every stage of litigation, demonstrate

“an actual injury traceable to the [respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Abreu v. Superintendent Smithfield SCI, 971 F.3d 408, 406 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 2005)). A habeas petition generally is moot once the petitioner has been removed from the country because the Court no longer can order the relief requested in the petition. See Lindaastuty v. Attorney General, 186 Fed. Appx. 294, 298 (3d Cir. 2006) (unpublished); see also Hamilton v. Bromley, 862 F.3d 329, 335 (3d Cir. 2017) (a case is moot when “developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a [petitioner’s] personal stake in the outcome” or prevent the court from granting the requested relief). Because Petitioner has been removed from the United States, as attested by counsel, and supported by the absence of any result in ICE’s online detainee locator, this Court cannot grant him the relief he seeks. The petition is therefore moot and will be dismissed as such. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Section 2241 petition (ECF No. 8) and his motion to enforce the writ (ECF No. 38) are dismissed as moot. Because the instant petition is moot, and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See, e.g., Kimberly v. Giroux, 2014 WL 1268716, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2014). The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.

So ordered, this 23rd day of March, 2026.

ae RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHNSTOWN JOHN ANTHONY TAYLOR, ) ) Petitioner ) 3:24-CV-00119-RAL ) VS. ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) Chief United States Magistrate Judge WARDEN LEMAR ODDO, ) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, MERRICK ) MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING B. GARLAND, TONY BRYSON, ) AS MOOT PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION TO Respondents ) ENFORCE WRIT ) ) IN RE: ECF NOS. 8, 38 )

Petitioner John Anthony Taylor (“Petitioner”) is a citizen of Jamaica. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Petitioner into custody in July of 2023. He filed the pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his immigration detention at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center and requesting a bond hearing. ECF No. 8, generally. Counsel later entered

an appearance on his behalf. See ECF No. 15. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. On March 20, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report advising that Petitioner had been removed from the United States on or about October 16, 2025. Based on the parties’ status report, the Court will dismiss the petition as moot. Article III limits federal judicial power to actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. A petitioner must, at every stage of litigation, demonstrate

“an actual injury traceable to the [respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Abreu v. Superintendent Smithfield SCI, 971 F.3d 408, 406 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 2005)). A habeas petition generally is moot once the petitioner has been removed from the country because the Court no longer can order the relief requested in the petition. See Lindaastuty v. Attorney General, 186 Fed. Appx. 294, 298 (3d Cir. 2006) (unpublished); see also Hamilton v. Bromley, 862 F.3d 329, 335 (3d Cir. 2017) (a case is moot when “developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a [petitioner’s] personal stake in the outcome” or prevent the court from granting the requested relief). Because Petitioner has been removed from the United States, as attested by counsel, and supported by the absence of any result in ICE’s online detainee locator, this Court cannot grant him the relief he seeks. The petition is therefore moot and will be dismissed as such. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Section 2241 petition (ECF No. 8) and his motion to enforce the writ (ECF No. 38) are dismissed as moot. Because the instant petition is moot, and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See, e.g., Kimberly v. Giroux, 2014 WL 1268716, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2014). The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.

So ordered, this 23rd day of March, 2026.

ae RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John Anthony Taylor v. Warden Lemar Oddo, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick B. Garland, Tony Bryson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-anthony-taylor-v-warden-lemar-oddo-alejandro-mayorkas-merrick-b-pawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack