Sheikh-Elmi v. Garland

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. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION GARLAND, et al., 9 Noted for August 19, 2025 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. Petitioner argues his continued detention violates 8 20 U.S.C. § 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 informing the Court that petitioner was removed to Somalia on May 23, 2025, and 1 asserting that because he is no longer in immigration custody the case is rendered 2 moot. See, Dkt. 41 (citing Foster v. Carson, 346 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003). On June 3 23, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause directing petitioner’s counsel to 4 show cause why the action should not be dismissed as moot. Dkt. 43. On July 2, 2025,

5 petitioner’s counsel filed a response to the Court’s order stating that: 6 Counsel has confirmed that Mr. Sheikh-Elmi was deported to Kenya, and then by Kenyan authorities to Somalia. As Mr. Sheikh-Elmi is no longer confined in the 7 United States, the Court should dismiss this action as moot.

8 Dkt. 44. 9 Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only 10 actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 11 (1988). “For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the 12 petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining ‘collateral 13 consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 14 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). 15 Here, petitioner’s habeas petition seeks only release from immigration detention 16 and does not appear to allege any collateral consequence that can be addressed by the 17 Court. See id. at 1065. Furthermore, petitioner’s counsel agrees the matter should be 18 dismissed as moot. 19 Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the habeas corpus petition (Dkt. 1) as 20 moot.1 See id.; Babak v. ICE FOD, 20-cv-212-RSM-BAT, 2020 WL 1976798, at *1 21 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2020) R&R adopted by 2020 WL 1974335, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 22 1 The Court notes that there appears to be some inconsistency in the record regarding whether petitioner 23 was removed directly to Somalia or whether he was removed first to Kenya. However, petitioner’s counsel does not argue, nor does it appear to the Court, that this affects the status of this case which is rendered 24 moot by the fact that petitioner is no longer in immigration detention. 1 Apr. 24, 2020) (dismissing habeas petition that challenged only length of immigration 2 detention as moot after ICE released petitioner on supervision). 3 The Court recommends that petitioner’s habeas corpus petition (Dkt. 1) should 4 be DISMISSED without prejudice as moot. Respondent’s pending motion to dismiss

5 (Dkt. 7) should be DENIED as moot. A proposed order and proposed judgment 6 accompany this Report and Recommendation. 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 8 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 10 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can 11 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 12 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 13 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 14 directed to set the matter for consideration on August 19, 2025, as noted in the

15 caption. 16 17 Dated this 4th day of August, 2025. 18 19 20 A

Theresa L. Fricke 21 United States Magistrate Judge

22 23 24