Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
D.P., 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:25-cv-104-CDL-AGH
: 	28 U.S.C. § 2241
KRISTI NOEM, et al., 	:
:
Respondents. 	:
_________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s application for habeas relief (ECF
No. 1) and Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10). 	On September 18, 2025,
Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner was removed from the United States
to Russia. 	Resp’ts’ Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 10. 	In support, Respondents
submitted a declaration from Deportation Officer David Bush showing that Petitioner
was removed from the United States on August 18, 2025. 	Bush Decl. ¶ 3, Sept. 18,
2025, ECF No. 10-1. Due to Petitioner’s removal, Respondents move to dismiss her
petition as moot. 	Resp’ts’ Mot. to Dismiss 1-2. 	As explained below, the Court
recommends that the motion be granted.
“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
Case 4:25-cv-00104-CDL-AGH Document 13 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 3

2
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 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 her a writ of habeas corpus and
release from custody. Pet. 6, ECF No. 1. Petitioner was removed from the country to
Russia and appears to no longer be in Respondents’ custody. 	Bush Decl. ¶ 3, Sept.
18, 2025. 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. 10) be GRANTED, and Petitioner’s application for habeas 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.
1 The Court sent notice (ECF No. 11) to Petitioner of her right to respond to Respondents’ motion to
dismiss, but the notice was returned as undeliverable because she was no longer at the detention
facility. Mail Returned, ECF No. 12. The Court has no other address for Petitioner.
Case 4:25-cv-00104-CDL-AGH Document 13 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 3

3
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.
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 1st day of December, 2025.
s/ Amelia G. Helmick
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00104-CDL-AGH Document 13 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 3