# Saleem v. Laurel

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · November 14, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10412482

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 14, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10412482

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMMAD SOHAIL SALEEM, Civil No, 3:21-cv-861
Petitioner . (Judge Mariani)
mo 3 SCRANTON
SCLOANPHILL,etal, NO
Respondents Pen te
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), filed by Petitioner Mohammad Sohail Saleem (“Saleem”). At the
time the petition was fled, Saleem was in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections. Saleem is currently being held at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center,
an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) building located in Philipsburg,
Pennsylvania. See ICE Online Detainee Locator System, available at:
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/homePage.do (last accessed Nov. 10, 2022). For the reasons
set forth below, the Court will dismiss the habeas petition as moot.
Discussion
In 2014, Saleem was charged with various sexually related offenses in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lebanon County. See Commonwealth v. Saleem, CP-38-CR-0001112-
2014, CP-38-CR-0000565-2014 (Lebanon County Ct. Com. PI.). On Apri 21, 2015, Saleem

pled guilty to indecent assault and harassment involving two victims who were employees of

a small business owned by Saleem. Commonwealth v. Saleem, 2017 WL 1223851, *1 (Pa.
Super. 2017). Saleem was subsequently found to be a sexually violent predator. /d. On
June 3, 2015, a sentencing hearing was held. /d. At sentencing, following a discussion
regarding possible deportation proceedings, the trial court sentenced Saleem to an
aggregate prison term of twenty-one (21) months to ten (10) years.' Id.
On February 7, 2022, the Pennsylvania Parole Board granted Saleem parole. (Doc.
20-4). The Parole Board paroled Saleem to his ICE detainer. (/d. at p. 2).
In his present habeas petition, Saleem sets forth two grounds for relief: (1) the
Commonwealth kidnapped Saleem by filing a false writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum; and (2) because the Commonwealth took temporary custody of Saleem
pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, primary jurisdiction remains with
federal authorities. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). Saleem seeks release from state custody. (/d. at p.
8). Respondents argue that the petition must be dismissed as moot because Saleem is no
longer being held on his state criminal matters. (Doc. 20). The petition is ripe for
disposition.

1 Throughout his state court proceedings, Saleem argued that his guilty plea was predicated
upon a promise that he would be immediately deported to Pakistan.

Il. Discussion . .
Article Ill of the Constitution dictates that a federal court may adjudicate “only actual,
ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
(1990); Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009). “This case-or-controversy
requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings [and for jurisdiction to
exist the] parties must continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit."
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S.
472, 477-78 (1990)). Thus, once a prisoner is released from custody, a habeas challenge
to some aspect of his confinement will become moot absent a redressable, continuing, and
concrete injury which persists after his release. Id.; see also Burkey, 556 F.3d at 146-50.
In the present case, Saleem sought release from the custody of the Pennsylvania
Department Corrections. On February 7, 2022, the Pennsylvania Parole Board granted
Saleem parole and paroled him to his ICE detainer. As Saleem has received the relief he
sought and was released from state custody, he no longer has a concrete, redressable
injury. This Court therefore lacks an opportunity to provide Saleem with any meaningful
relief in this habeas matter, and his challenge is moot. See Spencer, 523 U.S. 1 (dismissing
habeas petition as moot where vetitioner challenged the failure to be released on parole
and was subsequently released on parole); 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 nersonal 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.”).
ll. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will dismiss the habeas petition as moot.

. Aseparate Order shall issue.
GN
Ze
Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge
Dated: November LY. 2022

4 :

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10412482. Public record. Not legal advice.