United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
HUGH LAWSON, Senior
Before the Court is the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge (Doc. 12) that Petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be
dismissed. The petition of Mbeti Ndonga ("Petitioner") challenges the legality
of her detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officials. She
has filed an Objection (Doc. 13) to the Recommendation. After undertaking a
de novo review of the Recommendation, the Court accepts and adopts the
recommendation to dismiss the petition, while providing further explanation.
As detailed in the Recommendation, Petitioner's habeas petition must
be dismissed in light of the fact that she has been released from ICE custody.
The petition did not challenge the conditions of her detention but rather sought
a court order directing that she be released from custody. On July 10, 2014, ICE
issued an Order of Supervision ("OSUP") placing Petitioner on supervised release
subject to various conditions. (Order of Supervision, Doc. 8-1). Federal courts
retain jurisdiction to address the merits of a habeas petition where the
conditions of release "involve some restrictions upon [the petitioner's]
liberty." Dawson v. Scott , 50 F.3d 884, 886 n. 2 (11th Cir. 1995);
see also Jones v. Cunningham , 371 U.S. 236, 241-43, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9
L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). The conditions of the OSUP at issue here required, among
other things, that Petitioner notify ICE before traveling outside the state for
more than forty-eight hours. However, both this and the other restrictions in
the OSUP are appropriate under the relevant federal regulations, 8 C.F.R. §
241.5, and do not provide any grounds for granting Petitioner habeas relief.
See Alvarez v. Holder, 454 F.Appx. 769, 773-74 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding
that restrictions in an OSUP were appropriate under 8 C.F.R. § 241.5). Her
petition is dismissed.
The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial
showing that she has been denied a constitutional right, and a certificate of
appealability is therefore denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel