Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
H.O., :
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. : Case No. 4:26-cv-160-CDL-ALS
:
Warden, STEWART DETENTION :
CENTER, et al., :
:
Respondents. :
___________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s application for habeas relief and
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 1, 5). On February 18, 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 2, 2026. (ECF No. 5-1).
Due to Petitioner’s removal, Respondents move to dismiss his petition as moot. (ECF No.
5). As explained below, the Court recommends that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 5) be granted, and the Petition (ECF No. 1) 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
omitted). “[P]ut another way, a case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy
Case 4:26-cv-00160-CDL-ALS Document 10 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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. 1, at 3-4). Petitioner was removed from the country to Cote
d’Ivoire and appears to no longer be in Respondents’ custody. (ECF Nos. 5, at 1; 5-1; 5-2).
Petitioner did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss.1 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’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
5) be GRANTED, and Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1) 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.
1 All Orders from the Court that the Clerk sent to Petitioner were returned to the Court with a return to sender notice
indicating that Petitioner was no longer at Stewart Detention Center. (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9).
Case 4:26-cv-00160-CDL-ALS Document 10 Filed 04/15/26 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 15th day of April, 2026.
s/ ALFREDA L. SHEPPARD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00160-CDL-ALS Document 10 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 3