Daniel Brown v. United States Department of Ho

BLD-015                                                     NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                         FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

                                   No. 20-1883

                              DANIEL G. BROWN,




                 On Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil No. 3-20-cv-000119)
                 District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

     Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
       Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                October 22, 2020

            Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

                         (Opinion filed October 27, 2020)


       Daniel G. Brown is a citizen of Jamaica whose removal to that country was

ordered in 1997. See Brown v. Att’y Gen., 792 F. App’x 211, 212 (3d Cir. 2019). In

2019, following a series of Brown’s removals and illegal reentries, the Government took

him into custody pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) in order to execute his order of removal

once again. Brown challenged his detention by filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2241. He argued that his detention was illegal because his removal was not reasonably

foreseeable, and he requested immediate release. He did not raise any challenge to, or

anything bearing on, the order of removal itself. While Brown’s petition was pending, he

filed a motion seeking immediate release on the basis of COVID-19 as well. The District

Court denied Brown’s petition and his motion on the merits.

       Brown appeals. On September 10, 2020, while this appeal was pending, the

Government removed Brown to Jamaica.1 On that basis, the Government has filed a

motion to dismiss this appeal as moot. Brown has not responded to that motion, and we

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
 Brown did not ask us to stay his removal. Brown requested a stay of removal in
connection with his most recent immigration-related petition for review at C.A. No. 18-
1370, but we denied that request and later denied in part and dismissed in part his petition
for review. See Brown, 792 F. App’x at 214.
agree that Brown’s removal moots his requests for release from custody. See Abreu v.

Superintendent Smithfield SCI, 

971 F.3d 403

, 405-06, 408-09 (3d Cir. 2020); cf. Osorio-

Martinez v. Att’y Gen., 

893 F.3d 153

, 161 n.6 (3d Cir. 2018) (holding that noncitizens’

release from immigration detention did not moot their habeas petition where, unlike here,

the petition also challenged the legality of their removal); Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec.,

656 F.3d 221

, 227-28 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that noncitizen’s release from pre-removal-

order custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) did not moot his habeas petition where, unlike

here, there was a non-speculative possibility that the petitioner could be subject to the

complained-of detention again), abrogated in part on other grounds by Jennings v.


138 S. Ct. 830


       Rather than dismiss this appeal, however, we will follow the usual practice in this

situation of vacating the order under review. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,

340 U.S. 36

, 39 (1950). Thus, we will vacate the District Court’s order on the merits and

will remand for the District Court to dismiss Brown’s requests for relief as moot. See

Abreu, 971 F.3d at 409

. The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal is denied as

presented. Brown’s motion to transfer this appeal to another Court of Appeals is denied.

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on Beware.org, it is strongly advised to avoid Daniel Brown v. United States Department of Ho in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Daniel Brown v. United States Department of Ho. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike Beware.org, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Daniel Brown v. United States Department of Ho is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.