Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02739/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02739-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 On November 4, 2009, the court informed petitioner that failure to file a written

opposition or a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the

motion, gave petitioner 30 days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition and warned

him that failure to do so would result in this action being dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAN LI,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2739 EFB P

vs.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a detainee of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has filed a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the length of his detention. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

On September 11, 2009, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for mootness, informing the

court that petitioner was released from ICE custody pursuant to an Order of Supervision on

September 11, 2009.1

 Dckt. No. 13 at 1 (citing to Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773 (9th Cir.

Case 2:08-cv-02739-EFB Document 15 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 The 30 days have passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no

opposition and has not otherwise responded to the November 4, 2009 order. 

2

1991)). Attached to the motion is a copy of an “ICE Notification of Order of Supervision,”

indicating that petitioner was released from ICE custody on September 11, 2009, pending his

removal from the United States. Dckt. No. 13 at 4-5. 

Under Article III, § 2 of the federal Constitution, a federal court’s jurisdiction is limited

to those cases which present “cases-or-controversies.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the court

of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983);

NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case

becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally

cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (internal

quotations omitted). That is, a federal court does not have power to decide a matter that does not

affect the rights of litigants in the case before it. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477-78 (1990); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1996). This court may only

grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus if petitioner can show that “he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

Since petitioner is no longer in custody, this action is moot. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s September 11, 2009 motion to

dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it is now moot.

Dated: January 7, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02739-EFB Document 15 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2