Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
J.I.N.D., 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:25-cv-334-CDL-CHW
: 	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Warden, STEWART DETENTION 	:
CENTER, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
_________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief (Doc. 1),
and Respondent’s motions to dismiss (Docs. 6, 12). On January 9, 2026, Respondent filed the
second motion to dismiss in response (Doc. 12) in response to the Court’s order to supplement
the record regarding Petitioner’s status. (Doc. 11). In that motion, Respondent notified the
Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United States, submitting a declaration
explaining that Petitioner was removed from the United States on December 17, 2025. (Doc.
7-1). Due to Petitioner’s removal, Respondent moves to dismiss the habeas petition as moot.
It 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Respondent’s 	second 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	(Doc. 	12) 	be
GRANTED, the first motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) be TERMINATED as moot, and
Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief (Doc. 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
(11th Cir. 2002) (citing U.S. CONST . art. III, § 2). “The doctrine of mootness derives directly
from the case or controversy limitation because an action that is moot cannot be characterized
Case 4:25-cv-00334-CDL-CHW Document 13 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
as an active case or controversy.” Id. (quotations and citation 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. (quotations and citations 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. Petitioner has been removed from the country and, according to Respondent, is no
longer in Respondent’s custody. Because 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 (citations omitted).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s second
motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) be GRANTED, that Respondent’s first motion to dismiss (Doc.
6) be TERMINATED as moot, and Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief (Doc. 1)
be DISMISSED as moot.
OBJECTIONS
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 thereof. Any objection is limited in length to
TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The District Judge shall make a de novo
Case 4:25-cv-00334-CDL-CHW Document 13 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other
portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are further 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 12th day of January, 2026.
s/ Charles H. Weigle_________
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00334-CDL-CHW Document 13 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3