Ramziddin Ibodulla Ugli Sho yimov v. Leonard Oddo, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RAMZIDDIN IBODULLA UGLI ) SHOYIMOV, ) ) Petitioner, ) No. 3:26-cv-00848 ) v. ) Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon ) LEONARD ODDO, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER Petitioner filed a pro se Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) on May 7, 2026. (Doc. 3). On June 2, 2026, this Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with a hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and all related provisions of law or, otherwise, release Petitioner, on or before June 9, 2026. (Doc. 9). Shortly thereafter, on June 3, 2026, Respondents’ Counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 11) informing the Court that Petitioner has been granted voluntary departure by the Immigration Judge and the decision is final. Id. The Motion suggests that the voluntary departure order renders the habeas petition and requested relief moot. See id. at 3 (citing cases) & Ex. 1.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to challenge the legal authority under which an individual is being held in custody. See, e.g., Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013). It is a well-established principle, however, that federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide an issue unless it presents a live case or controversy as required by Article III, § 2, of the Const. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). “To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750-51 (1984), and Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-73 (1982)). “The case or controversy requirement continues through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate, and requires that parties have a personal stake in the outcome.” Id. (citing Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477-78). Thus, if developments occur during the litigation that eliminate a petitioner’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from granting effective relief, the case must be dismissed as moot. See id. at 147-48; Keitel, 729 F.3d at 280. Given Petitioner’s imminent voluntary departure, there is no longer a remedy that the Court can provide. Therefore, the Petition and any related motions are moot.

Accordingly, the following order is entered: ORDER AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2026, IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 11) is GRANTED, the Judgment entered on June 2, 2026 (Doc. 10) is VACATED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 3) hereby is DISMISSED as moot.

s/Cathy Bissoon ______________________________ Cathy Bissoon Chief United States District Judge cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail): Ramziddin Ibodulla GoLive Shoyimov A245 239 480 Jackson Parish Correctional Center LEGAL MAIL - Open in Presence of Detainee Industrial Drive Jonesboro, LA 71251