United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Waycross Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
Ibrahim Faisal (“Faisal”), who was formerly
housed at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) Processing Center in Folkston, Georgia,
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Respondent filed a Response.
(Doc. 8.) For the reasons which follow, I
RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS as
moot Faisal's Petition, DIRECT
the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case, and
DENY Faisal in forma pauperis
status on appeal.
filed his Petition on May 30, 2017. (Doc. 1.) Faisal asserts
he attempted to enter the United States as an
émigré from Ghana and has been in ICE's
custody since December 31, 2016. (Id. at p. 1.) On
February 6, 2017, Faisal states an Immigration Judge ordered
him to be removed or deported, but he was not deported within
the ninety (90) day period following that
order. Thus, Faisal requested that this Court
order ICE to release him from its custody.
August 15, 2017, Respondent filed his Response to
Faisal's Petition. (Doc. 8.) Therein, Respondent explains
that Faisal was removed to Ghana on June 13, 2017.
(Id. at p. 1.) Indeed, the Court's July 20,
2017, show cause Order was returned to the Court as
undeliverable on July 28, 2017. (Doc. 4.) Thus, Respondent
asserts Faisal's release from ICE custody renders his
Petition moot, and his Petition should be dismissed.
Whether Faisal's Petition is Moot
III of the Constitution “extends the jurisdiction of
federal courts to only ‘Cases' and
‘Controversies.'” Strickland v.
Alexander, 772 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2014). This
“case-or-controversy restriction imposes” what is
“generally referred to as ‘justiciability'
limitations.” Id. There are “three
strands of justiciability doctrine-standing, ripeness, and
mootness-that go to the heart of the Article III case or
controversy requirement.” Harrell v. The Fla.
Bar, 608 F.3d 1241, 1247 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted). With regard to the
mootness strand, the United States Supreme Court has made
clear that “a federal court has no authority ‘to
give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions,
or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect
the matter in issue in the case before it.'”
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506
U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly,
“[a]n issue is moot when it no longer presents a live
controversy with respect to which the court can give
meaningful relief.” Friends of Everglades v. S.
Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir.
2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Questions of
justiciability are not answered “simply by looking to
the state of affairs at the time the suit was filed. Rather,
the Supreme Court has made clear that the controversy
‘must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at
the time the complaint is filed.'” Christian
Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182,
1189-90 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Preiser v.
Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)).
Petition, Faisal only requests release from ICE's
custody. As noted above, Faisal has since been granted this
release, (doc. 8, p. 1), and there is no longer a “live
controversy” over which the Court can give meaningful
relief. Friends of Everglades, 570 F.3d at 1216.
Accordingly, the Court should DISMISS as
moot Faisal's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis
Court should also deny Faisal leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. Though Faisal has, of course, not yet filed a
notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these
issues in the Court's order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal of party
proceeding in forma pauperis is not taken in good
faith “before or after the notice of appeal is
appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the
trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good
faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).
Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective
standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687,
691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith
when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the
factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal
theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Stated
another way, an in forma pauperis action is
frivolous, and thus, not brought in good faith, if it is
“without arguable merit either in law or fact.”
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir.
2002); see also Brown v. United States, Nos.
407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9,
the above analysis of Faisal's Petition and
Respondent's Response, there are no non-frivolous issues
to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good
faith. Thus, ...