Ezeani Ifesinachi v. Warden Essex County Correction ( 2021 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2421
__________
EZEANI GREGORY IFESINACHI,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civ. No. 2:19-cv-19287)
District Judge: Honorable Claire C. Cecchi
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 25, 2021
Before: CHAGARES, PHIPPS and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed June 30, 2021)
___________
OPINION*
___________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
Gregory Ifesinachi Ezeani,1 a citizen of Nigeria, appeals pro se from the District
Court’s June 12, 2020 order dismissing his immigration-related habeas petition filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we exercise de novo review over the District Court’s
dismissal order. See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012).
During the pendency of the District Court proceedings, the Department of
Homeland Security released Ezeani from immigration detention on his own
recognizance. In light of that development, we agree with the District Court that, to the
extent Ezeani sought to challenge the legality of his detention, that aspect of his habeas
petition is moot. See Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002); see also
Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If
developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal
stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested
relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”). We also agree with the District Court that,
to the extent Ezeani’s habeas petition sought to challenge aspects of his removal
proceedings, dismissal was appropriate because the proper vehicle for pursuing such a
challenge is a petition for review filed in our Court after the agency’s issuance of a final
1
Although the District Court docket and the case caption above refer to Appellant as
“Ezeani Gregory Ifesinachi,” he refers to himself as Gregory Ifesinachi Ezeani. We
follow his lead.
2
order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9); Tazu v. Att’y Gen., 975 F.3d 292, 294 (3d
Cir. 2020). Ezeani’s bald contention that the District Court was biased against him is
unpersuasive, and none of the other arguments presented in his briefing warrants
disturbing the District Court’s decision.
In view of the above, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Ezeani’s
habeas petition.
3