Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
C.E.F., 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:25-cv-117-CDL-AGH
: 	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Warden, STEWART DETENTION 	:
CENTER, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
_________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s application for habeas relief (ECF
No. 1), and Respondent’s second motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9). 	On December 29,
2025, Respondent notified the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the
United States to Jamaica. 	Resp’t’s 2d Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 9. 	In support,
Respondent submitted a declaration from Supervisory Deportation and Detention
Officer Tartanger Stephens showing that Petitioner was removed from the United
States on October 16, 2025. Stephens Decl. ¶ 5, Dec. 29, 2025, ECF No. 9-1. Due to
Petitioner’s removal, Respondent moves to dismiss his petition as moot. Resp’t’s 2d
Mot. to Dismiss 1-3. 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
Case 4:25-cv-00117-CDL-AGH Document 13 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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 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. Pet. 7, ECF No. 1. Petitioner was removed from the country to
Jamaica and appears to no longer be in Respondent’s custody. 	Resp’t’s 2d Mot. to
Dismiss 1-3; Stephens Decl. ¶ 5. Petitioner did not respond to the second motion to
dismiss.1 Because Petitioner is no longer in Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s second motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 9) be GRANTED, Respondent’s first motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) be
denied as moot, Petitioner’s motion for immediate release (ECF No. 6) be denied as
moot, 	and 	Petitioner’s 	application 	for 	habeas 	corpus 	relief 	(ECF 	No. 	1) 	be
1 The Court sent notice (ECF No. 10) to Petitioner of his right to respond to Respondent’s second motion
to dismiss, but the notice was returned as undeliverable because he was no longer at the detention
facility. Mail Returned, ECF No. 12. The Court has no other address for Petitioner.
Case 4:25-cv-00117-CDL-AGH Document 13 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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.
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 2nd day of February, 2026.
s/ Amelia G. Helmick
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00117-CDL-AGH Document 13 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3