Sheikh-Elmi v. Garland

W.D. Washington

Sheikh-Elmi v. Garland

DecidedJune 23, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01048

StatusUnknown

This text of Sheikh-Elmi v. Garland (Sheikh-Elmi v. Garland) 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

Sheikh-Elmi v. Garland, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 NUR SHEIKH-ELMI, Case No. 2:24-cv-01048-TMC-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 8 RE-NOTING MOTION GARLAND, et al., 9 Respondent. 10

11 Petitioner Nur Sheikh-Elmi commenced this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration 12 habeas corpus action seeking release from detention when he was detained by the U.S. 13 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center 14 (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, Washington. Dkt. 1. Petitioner has been appointed counsel in 15 this case. See Dkt. 5. 16 The petition asserts that although petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, 17 there is no reasonable likelihood that his removal will take place in the reasonably 18 foreseeable future; he asserts his detention has become “indefinite” under Zadvydas v. 19 Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id. He argues his continued detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 20 1231(a)(6) and his due process rights. Id. The Government has filed a return 21 memorandum and motion to dismiss. Dkt. 7. The parties have also submitted additional 22 briefing pursuant to this Court’s orders that they do so. Dkts. 15, 24, 28. 23 On May 29, 2025, the Government filed a “notice of change in custody status” 24 1 informing the Court that petitioner was removed to Somalia on May 23, 2025, and 2 asserting that because he is no longer in immigration custody the case is rendered 3 moot. See, Dkt. 41 (citing Foster v. Carson, 346 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only

5 actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 6 (1988). “For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the 7 petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining ‘collateral 8 consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 9 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). Because petitioner’s habeas petition challenges only 10 the length of his immigration detention, his removal appears to render this case moot. 11 See id. at 1065. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 13 (1) Petitioner’s counsel is directed to show cause by July 7, 2025, why this action 14 should not be dismissed as moot.

15 (2) The Clerk is directed to re-note the Government’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7) to 16 July 7, 2025. 17 (3) The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this order to counsel for both parties 18 and to the Honorable Tiffany M. Cartwright. 19 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2025. 20 21 A 22 Theresa L. Fricke 23 United States Magistrate Judge

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 NUR SHEIKH-ELMI, Case No. 2:24-cv-01048-TMC-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 8 RE-NOTING MOTION GARLAND, et al., 9 Respondent. 10

11 Petitioner Nur Sheikh-Elmi commenced this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration 12 habeas corpus action seeking release from detention when he was detained by the U.S. 13 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center 14 (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, Washington. Dkt. 1. Petitioner has been appointed counsel in 15 this case. See Dkt. 5. 16 The petition asserts that although petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, 17 there is no reasonable likelihood that his removal will take place in the reasonably 18 foreseeable future; he asserts his detention has become “indefinite” under Zadvydas v. 19 Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id. He argues his continued detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 20 1231(a)(6) and his due process rights. Id. The Government has filed a return 21 memorandum and motion to dismiss. Dkt. 7. The parties have also submitted additional 22 briefing pursuant to this Court’s orders that they do so. Dkts. 15, 24, 28. 23 On May 29, 2025, the Government filed a “notice of change in custody status” 24 1 informing the Court that petitioner was removed to Somalia on May 23, 2025, and 2 asserting that because he is no longer in immigration custody the case is rendered 3 moot. See, Dkt. 41 (citing Foster v. Carson, 346 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only

5 actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 6 (1988). “For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the 7 petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining ‘collateral 8 consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 9 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). Because petitioner’s habeas petition challenges only 10 the length of his immigration detention, his removal appears to render this case moot. 11 See id. at 1065. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 13 (1) Petitioner’s counsel is directed to show cause by July 7, 2025, why this action 14 should not be dismissed as moot.

15 (2) The Clerk is directed to re-note the Government’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7) to 16 July 7, 2025. 17 (3) The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this order to counsel for both parties 18 and to the Honorable Tiffany M. Cartwright. 19 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2025. 20 21 A 22 Theresa L. Fricke 23 United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sheikh-Elmi v. Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheikh-elmi-v-garland-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack