Hassan v. Barr
- John Tunheim
- 0:19-cv-01175
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Hassan v. Barr, Judge Tunheim sustained the government’s objection, declined to adopt the report, and denied Hassan’s detention petition as moot.
Ahmed Mohamed Hassan and the United States respondents in his detention challenge.
What happened
In Hassan v. Barr, Ahmed Mohamed Hassan challenged his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while removal proceedings were pending. He filed a petition asking the court to review that detention.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the petition in part and denying it in part, including holding a hearing about whether detention was necessary. The United States objected, arguing that Hassan had been released.
The court found the case moot because Hassan appeared to have been released and it was unclear whether he would be detained again. Judge John R. Tunheim sustained the objection, declined to adopt the recommendation, and denied Hassan’s petition as moot.
The detailed version
- Hassan v. Barr · No. 0:19-cv-01175
- John Tunheim
- Mar. 25, 2020
Background
Ahmed Mohamed Hassan, described in the opinion as a native and citizen of Somalia, was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement while removal proceedings were pending. The opinion states that he had pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance. Hassan filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. He represented himself.
On November 20, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that recommended granting Hassan’s petition in part and denying it in part. It also recommended holding a bond hearing to decide whether Hassan’s detention was necessary to protect the community and prevent him from fleeing.
The United States objected only on the ground that the petition had become moot because Hassan had been released from detention. The United States did not submit affidavits with its objection. The report and recommendation had been returned as undeliverable to Hassan and was not resent because he could not be located in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement locator.
Mootness analysis
The court explained that Article III of the Constitution requires an ongoing case or controversy throughout a lawsuit. A person’s release after filing a detention petition does not automatically make the petition moot. But the court held that this case was “prudentially moot”—meaning that uncertainties about possible future detention and the court’s inability to provide an effective remedy made it inappropriate to proceed.
The court found that Hassan appeared to have been released from custody and that it was unclear whether he would be apprehended again. On that basis, it treated the claim as moot without deciding whether Hassan’s detention had been lawful or whether he was entitled to a bond hearing.
Disposition
The court sustained the United States’ objection to the report and recommendation. It declined to adopt the report and recommendation because it was moot, and it denied Hassan’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as moot. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.