Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LUIS MERCADO GUZMAN, )

)

Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-61

)

v. )

) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge

WARDEN MOSHANNON VALLEY )

PROCESSING CENTER, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court1 is the pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1) filed

by Luis Mercado Guzman (“Petitioner”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below,

the Court will dismiss the Petition because it is moot.

I. Relevant Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic who entered the United States

in June 2011. (Resp’s Ex. 1.) Beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2022, he was convicted

of multiple crimes, including a 2019 conviction for possession of heroin. (Resp’s Ex. 2.)

In August 2023, Petitioner was arrested in New Jersey pursuant to a bench warrant on state

charges related to his unlawful possession of weapons. (Resp’s Ex. 6.) After this arrest, he was

served with the Department of Homeland Security Notice to Appear for a hearing in

September 2023. In this Notice, Petitioner was charged with being removable because of his 2019

conviction for possession of heroin. (Resp’s Ex. 2.)

1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties voluntarily consented to

have a U.S. Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including entry of a final judgment.

Petitioner, through counsel representing him in his immigration proceeding, filed several

motions to continue his hearing. It was eventually held and, in May 2024, the immigration judge

ordered that Petitioner be removed. (Resp’s Ex. 5.) Petitioner appealed this decision to the Board

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Resp’s Ex. 7)

In the meantime, Petitioner, who at the time was in the custody of the U.S. Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center (“MVPC”),

commenced this case by filing the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. (ECF 1.) He provided little factual detail to support his request for habeas relief, but

pointed out that he was appealing the immigration judge’s removal order to the BIA and asserted

that his detention at MVPC under the circumstances violated his right to due process. (Id., ¶¶ 11-

13.)

Respondents filed their Answer (ECF 9) opposing the Petition. Petitioner then filed his

Reply (ECF 12) in which he explained that the BIA had recently dismissed the appeal he had filed

challenging the immigration judge’s removal order because it determined that his appeal was

untimely filed. Petitioner claimed the attorney who represented him during his immigration

proceeding provided him with ineffective assistance. (Id.)

Petitioner was later transferred out of MVPC. Since that time, he has not updated his

address of record or otherwise communicated with the Court.2 A review of the docket of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which hears appeals from BIA decisions, shows that in late

2024 the BIA reinstated Petitioner’s appeal of the immigration judge’s removal order. The Court

2 In an order the Court issued at the beginning of this case, the Court advised Petitioner that he “is

under a continuing obligation to notify the Court of any change of address by filing a separate

document entitled Notice of Change of Address.” (ECF 4.) Petitioner did not comply with this

directive, likely because he is no longer interested in the outcome of this case since, as explained

herein, he ultimately was successful in reopening his immigration proceedings.

of Appeals therefore dismissed as moot the petition for review that Petitioner had filed with it

because Petitioner was no longer subject to a final order of removal. See docket sheet for Mercado

Guzman v. Attorney General of the U.S., C.A. No. 24-2472 (available on PACER).

II. Discussion

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). The general habeas statute at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 confers jurisdiction on this Court to hear

certain statutory and constitutional challenges raised by an immigration detainee challenging his

detention. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001).

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 Constitution.

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) (emphasis added) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990),

which cited 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. Id. at 147-48; Keitel, 729 F.3d at 280.

That is the case here. Petitioner has been released from MVPC and has not updated the

Court as to his present whereabouts. Additionally, he received relief in his BIA proceeding in the

form of an order that reopened his appeal of the removal order issued by the judge in his

immigration case. For all these reasons, the Petition that Petitioner filed in this case is moot.

Spencer, 523 U.S. at 18 (“[M]ootness, however it may have come about, simply deprives us of our

power to act; there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.”). Therefore,

the Court will dismiss the Petition and close this case. The dismissal is without prejudice to

Petitioner filing another habeas petition in the appropriate district court if he is still in ICE custody

and seeks to challenge the legality of that custody.

III. Conclusion

For all of these reasons, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice.

An appropriate Order follows.

Date: December 11, 2025 /s/ Patricia L. Dodge

PATRICIA L. DODGE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE