Nguyen v. Barr

W.D. New York

Nguyen v. Barr

DecidedOctober 8, 2020

Docket6:20-cv-06499

StatusUnknown

This text of Nguyen v. Barr (Nguyen v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nguyen v. Barr, (W.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NGUYEN TAI VAN,

Petitioner, Case # 20-CV-6499-FPG

v. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Respondents.

Pro se Petitioner Nguyen Tai Van 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 August 2, 2020, immigration authorities removed Petitioner from the United States pursuant to a Warrant of Removal/Deportation. ECF No. 4 at 4; see also ECF No. 5 at 2. Respondents now move to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner’s release renders the case moot. ECF No. 5. 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. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 8, 2020 Rochester, New York : FRANK P. GERACT, JR. Chief Judge United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NGUYEN TAI VAN,

Petitioner, Case # 20-CV-6499-FPG

v. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Respondents.

Pro se Petitioner Nguyen Tai Van 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 August 2, 2020, immigration authorities removed Petitioner from the United States pursuant to a Warrant of Removal/Deportation. ECF No. 4 at 4; see also ECF No. 5 at 2. Respondents now move to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner’s release renders the case moot. ECF No. 5. 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. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 8, 2020 Rochester, New York : FRANK P. GERACT, JR. Chief Judge United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nguyen v. Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nguyen-v-barr-nywd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack