Floyd Francis v. Loretta Lynch ( 2015 )

Case: 14-31110 Document: 00513266687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-31110
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 11, 2015
FLOYD STANHOPE FRANCIS,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:14-CV-168
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
In February 2014, Floyd Stanhope Francis, a native and citizen of
Jamaica, filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his
prolonged detention by the Department of Homeland Security as
unconstitutional in light of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and
seeking injunctive relief. The Government has moved to supplement the
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-31110 Document: 00513266687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2015
No. 14-31110
record with a declaration from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
that Francis was removed to Jamaica on August 27, 2015.
“Whether an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates
the Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy.” Bailey v.
Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). “In general, a matter is moot
for Article III purposes if the issues presented are no longer live or the parties
lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Sierra Club v. Glickman,
156 F.3d 606, 619 (5th Cir. 1998).
In this appeal, Francis challenged only the lawfulness of the length of
his post-removal-order detention, not the basis for his removal or the removal
order itself. Thus, because he is no longer detained and has been removed from
the United States, his challenge is now moot. See Odus v. Ashcroft, 61 F. App’x
121, 121 (5th Cir. 2003); Umanzor v. Lambert, 782 F.2d 1299, 1301 (5th Cir.
1986).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Francis’s motion to
supplement his brief is DENIED; the Government’s motion to supplement the
record is GRANTED.
2