Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
SAYDA AYALA o/b/o E.S.R-M., :
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. : Case No. 4:26-cv-106-CDL-ALS
:
Warden, STEWART DETENTION :
CENTER, et al., :
:
Respondents. :
___________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s amended application for habeas relief
and Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 6, 9, 12). On April 27, 2026,
Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United States.
In support, Respondents submitted an I-205 Warrant of Removal/Deportation showing
that Petitioner was removed from the United States on February 27, 2026. (ECF No. 12-
1). Due to Petitioner’s removal, Respondents move to dismiss his petition as moot. (ECF
No. 12). As explained below, the Court recommends that Respondents’ second Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 12) be granted, Respondents’ first Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) be
denied as moot, and the Amended Petition (ECF No. 6) be dismissed as moot.
“Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the
consideration of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237,
1242-43 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 and finding appeal moot where
petitioner was removed from the United States). “The doctrine of mootness derives
directly from the case or controversy limitation because an action that is moot cannot be
characterized as an active case or controversy.” Id. at 1242 (internal quotation marks
Case 4:26-cv-00106-CDL-ALS Document 14 Filed 06/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
omitted). “[P]ut another way, a case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy
with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Therefore, ‘[i]f events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an
appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief,
then the case is moot and must be dismissed.’” Id. (quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273
F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Here, Petitioner sought an order granting him a writ of habeas corpus and release
from custody. (ECF No. 6, at 7). Petitioner was removed from the country to El Salvador
and appears to no longer be in Respondents’ custody. (ECF Nos. 12, at 1; 12-1). Petitioner
did not respond to either Motion to Dismiss. Because Petitioner is no longer in
Respondents’ custody, the Court can no longer give Petitioner any meaningful relief, the
case is moot, and “dismissal is required because mootness is jurisdictional.” Al Najjar,
273 F.3d at 1336.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Respondents’ second Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 12) be GRANTED, Respondents’ first motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) be
DENIED as moot, and Petitioner’s amended application for habeas corpus relief (ECF
No. 6) be DISMISSED as moot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may
serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to
file objections, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy hereof. Any
objection should be no longer than TWENTY (20) PAGES in length. See M.D. Ga. L.R.
7.4. The district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation
may be reviewed for clear error.
Case 4:26-cv-00106-CDL-ALS Document 14 Filed 06/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a]
party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in
a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting
and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection,
however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of
justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED, this 16th day of June, 2026.
s/ ALFREDA L. SHEPPARD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00106-CDL-ALS Document 14 Filed 06/16/26 Page 3 of 3