IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION

FRANCIS ARMAND TAPE,

Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:25-cv-65

v.

WARDEN, FOLKSTON ICE PROCESSING CENTER,

Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Francis Tape (“Tape”), who was incarcerated at the Folkston Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Processing Center in Folkston, Georgia, filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas. Doc. 1. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 13. For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court GRANT Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and DENY as moot Tape’s Petition. I also RECOMMEND the Court DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and DENY Tape leave to appeal in forma pauperis. BACKGROUND Tape arrived at the Orlando, Florida port of entry on February 10, 2001. Doc. 13-1 at 2. Tape was in the Department of Homeland Security’s custody since June 2008 and seeks to be released. Doc. 1 at 7. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and states Tape was removed from the United States on August 5, 2025. Doc. 13. Respondent asserts Tape’s Petition is now moot and should be dismissed.

DISCUSSION I. Tape’s Petition Is Now Moot

Article III of the Constitution “extends the jurisdiction of federal courts to only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Strickland v. Alexander,

(11th Cir. 2014). This “case- or-controversy restriction imposes” what is “generally referred to as ‘justiciability’ limitations.”

There are “three strands of justiciability doctrine—standing, ripeness, and mootness—that go to the heart of the Article III case or controversy requirement.” Harrell v. The Fla. Bar,

(11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Regarding the mootness strand, the United States Supreme Court has made clear “a federal court has no authority ‘to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States,

(1992) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, “[a]n issue is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Friends of Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.,

(11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Questions of justiciability are not answered “simply by looking to the state of affairs at the time the suit was filed. Rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that the controversy ‘must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’” Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States,

, 1189–90 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk,

(1975)). “Events which occur subsequent to the filing of a petition may render the matter moot.” Johnson v. Glover, No. 1:04-CV-413,

, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 18, 2006) (citing Nat’l Black Police Ass’n v. District of Columbia,

(D.C. Cir. 1997)). Here, Tape asks the Court to be released. Doc. 1 at 7. Tape was removed from the United States on August 5, 2025. Doc. 13-1 at 1 (warrant of removal based on immigration judge’s final order of removal). Tape does not dispute this. Because Tape is no longer being detained, there is no longer a “live controversy” over which the Court can give meaningful relief.

Friends of Everglades,

. Accordingly, the Court should GRANT Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and DENY as moot Tape’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. II. Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis The Court should also deny Tape leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Tape has not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address that issue in the Court’s order of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (noting trial court may certify appeal is not taken in good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is filed”). An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies, either before or after the notice of appeal is filed, the appeal is not taken in good faith.

(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard.

Busch v. County of Volusia,

(M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989); Carroll v. Gross,

(11th Cir. 1993). Thus, a claim is frivolous and not brought in good faith if it is “without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Moore v. Bargstedt,

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bilal v. Driver,

(11th Cir. 2001)); see also Brown v. United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001,

, at *1–2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009). Based on the above analysis of the filings in this case, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court should DENY Tape in forma pauperis status on appeal. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, I RECOMMEND the Court GRANT Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss and DENY as moot Tape’s Petition. I also RECOMMEND the Court DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and DENY Tape leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation shall be filed within 14 days of today’s date. Objections shall be specific and in writing. Any objection that the Magistrate Judge failed to address a contention raised in the Complaint must be included. Failure to file timely, written objections will bar any later challenge or review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions.

(b)(1)(C); Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t Station #4,

, 1192–93 (11th Cir. 2020). To be clear, a party waives all rights to

challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal by failing to file timely, written objections. Harrigan, 977 F.3d at 1192–93; 11th Cir. R. 3-1. A copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action. Upon receipt of objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein. Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by the District Judge. A party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 24th day of September, 2025.

BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA