Gurpreet Singh v. Warden Bergen County Jail

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2648
__________
GURPREET SINGH,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN BERGEN COUNTY JAIL
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00047)
District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 1, 2022
Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed September 20, 2022)
___________
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
Appellant Gurpreet Singh is a native of India who is subject to a final order of
removal to that country. He appeals from the District Court’s August 9, 2021 order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged his then-ongoing immigration
detention.
In June 2022, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) released Singh
from detention based on its determination that “[c]urrently, there is no significant
likelihood that [Singh] will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, despite the
Service’s and [Singh’s] efforts to effect removal.” 3d Cir. Docket # 26-2, at 4; see
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (“[A]n alien may be held in confinement
[pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)] until it has been determined that there is no
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”). In light of this
development, this appeal is now moot, and we will dismiss it on that basis. See Djadju v.
Vega, 32 F.4th 1102, 1105-09 (11th Cir. 2022); 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.”).1
1
Although Singh fears that ICE will unlawfully detain him in the future, that fear is
based merely on speculation. See generally Bridge v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 981 F.2d 97,
106 (3d Cir. 1992) (“Government officials are presumed to act in good faith.”).
2