Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00316/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00316-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

19cv316 JM(BLM)

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR JACOBO LUNA-FLORES et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U. S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv316 JM(BLM)

ORDER REGARDING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 

2) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10). A hearing on the motions was held 

on July 29, 2019. Mr. Bernal Ojeda appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, with Mr. Samuel 

Bettwy appearing on behalf of the United States Government.

On February 13, 2019, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a “Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.” (Doc. No. 1.) 

Plaintiffs are 11 noncitizens (7 adults and 4 minor children1) who presented themselves to 

the authorities at the San Ysidro Port of Entry (SYS/POE) on November 6, 2018. 

 

1 Originally Luna was seeking asylum for himself, his wife and daughter, his parents, 3 

sisters and their 3 children.

Case 3:19-cv-00316-JM-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19cv316 JM(BLM)

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

27

28

Following the initial processing at SYS/POE, all but Cesar Luna-Flores (“Luna-Flores”)

and his parents, Jose Antonio Jacobo Luna-Lopez and Maria del Carmen Flores-Castillo, 

were released on parole from ICE custody and allowed to travel to their intended domiciles 

in Moorpark, California. (Id. at 4-5.) 

Since the filing of the documents initiating this lawsuit, Luna-Lopez and FloresCastillo have been paroled and are living with the rest of their relatives in Los Angeles. 

(Doc. No. 8 at 4.) On June 6, 2019, Luna-Flores was removed to Mexico at the Hidalgo, 

Texas port of entry after voluntarily withdrawing his appeal before the Board of 

Immigration Appeals regarding the denial of his asylum claim. (Doc. No. 16; Doc. No. 

16-1.)

The motion for preliminary injunction requested: (1) an order transferring LunaFloresto the same location he occupied before his allegedly unlawful transfers; (2) an order 

allowing each Plaintiff to present the testimony of Luna-Flores in support of their 

respective applications for relief without government arbitrary and capricious interference; 

(3) an order requiring Defendants to immediately cease their allegedly unconstitutional 

treatment and unlawful separation of this family of asylum seekers by holding Luna-Flores

and his elder parents in the custody of ICE. (Doc. No. 2-2 at 21-22.) At oral argument 

counsel for Luna-Flores, Mr. Ojeda, acknowledged that the changes in the circumstances

of all Plaintiffs had rendered moot all relief requested by Plaintiffs with one exception to 

be discussed below. Mr. Ojeda expressly withdrew his requests for declaratory relief as 

well as injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the Plaintiffs’ claims for 

injunctive relief and declaratory relief WITHDRAWN. (Doc. No. 2.)

Next, the court turned to the Habeas Corpus portion of Plaintiffs hybrid complaint 

and questioned if it is also moot. A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer

“‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. 

Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (citation omitted). A key inquiry is whether it is 

“impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to [the] prevailing party.’”

Id (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “In that case, any opinion as to the 

Case 3:19-cv-00316-JM-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19cv316 JM(BLM)

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

27

28

legality of the challenged action would be advisory.” Id. In the context of a habeas petition, 

a district court generally lacks jurisdiction over the petition if the petitioner is not in 

government custody. See generally, Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631-632 (1982); see 

also Abdala v. INA, 488 F.3d 1061, 1083 (9th Cir. 2007) (“For a habeas petition to continue 

to present a live controversy after the petitioner’s release or deportation, however, there 

must be some remaining “collateral consequence” that may be redressed by success on the 

petition.”) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)).

In the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive 

Relief, Plaintiffs seek the following relief from the court: 

(1) Issue a preliminary injunction ordering the Defendants to immediately 

return Luna-Flores to the San Luis Regional Detention Center, Arizona or any 

other detention facility which falls under the jurisdiction of the San Diego ICE 

Field Office A[rea] O[f] R[esponsibility];

(2) Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus; order that Luna-Flores be returned to the 

AOR for the ICE Field Office in San Diego with appropriate conditions of 

supervision or electronic monitoring devices if necessary on the grounds that 

Defendants have not shown their detention is reasonably related to any 

government purpose and the government has not shown a factual basis or 

facially legitimate and bona fide reason for transferring him as shown to a far 

distant detention center; in the alternative, issue an order to show cause 

requiring Defendants to show, within 21 days or a reasonable time period the 

Court deems proper, why the writ should not issue; 

(3) Issue a declaration that Defendants by their pattern of conduct as asserted 

in the Complaint have interfered with the Plaintiffs’ statutory and 

constitutional rights to counsel of their choice and by that same conduct have 

infringed and interfered with the Plaintiffs’ existing attorney-client 

relationship, in violation of their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments 

to the United States Constitution and the INA with his right to access the 

courts and petition the government, as well as, with their right to be 

meaningfully heard;

(4) A declaration that Defendants’ failure to abide by their own internal 

policies are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in violation of the 

APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)), and that Defendants’ continuing to infringe and 

interfere without justification with the Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional 

rights to be meaningfully heard on the merits of their applications for asylum 

and related protections afforded by Congress to persons in the same situation 

violates the Plaintiffs right to equal protection of the law; 

Case 3:19-cv-00316-JM-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19cv316 JM(BLM)

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

27

28

(5) A preliminary injunction ordering the Defendant McHenry to instruct the 

immigration courts in San Diego, Los Angeles and Virginia that removal 

proceedings against the P[laintiffs] I[n] C[ustody]s Luna Flores, Luna Lopez, 

Flores-Castillo, and those against the remaining Plaintiffs be stayed, or 

suspended, or continued without taking any action other than a continuance 

for a reasonable period sufficient in time for this Court to determine the 

permanent relief that may be proper and just in this case to prevent further 

egregious harm to Plaintiffs; 

(6) An injunctive order instructing the Defendants to reconsider and/or 

reassess the Plaintiffs’ individual and collective requests for parole which are 

to abide by the four squares of the ICE Parole Directive Policy; 

(7) Attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and costs; and

(8) For such other and further or modified relief as the Plaintiffs may request 

and/or this Court may deem proper.

(Doc. No. 1 at 37-39.) 

Although, Mr. Ojeda disagreed with the court’s suggestion that the Petition for 

Habeas Corpus relief was moot he did concede that there is currently no case or controversy 

before the court and that he is simply seeking an advisory opinion from the court that if 

necessary Luna-Flores should be paroled into the United States to appear as a witness in 

his family members’ immigration proceedings. Based on Mr. Ojeda’s acknowledgment 

and admission and finding any relief it could offer to be purely advisory, the court 

DISMISSES as MOOT the entire action.

In dismissing the action, the court notes that at the hearing Mr. Ojeda clarified that 

the alleged Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) violations were intended to be used by 

Plaintiffs as the legal grounds for underlying their petition for habeas corpus and not as 

separate, independent claims.2 Accordingly, the court declines to address the service of 

 

2

In Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities on the 

Issue of Jurisdiction, Mr. Ojeda wrote: “the APA claim would be more properly 

characterized as the legal grounds underlying the required support for the petition for 

habeas corpus. The Plaintiffs after all filed their habeas petition relying on the APA 

violations as the centerfold of their claim for unlawful custody, not instead as an 

independent statutory claim for relief.” (Doc. No. 12 at 7.)

Case 3:19-cv-00316-JM-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19cv316 JM(BLM)

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

27

28

process and jurisdictional issues raised in Defendants’ motion to dismiss regarding the 

APA portion of the action.

Finally, Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

and for costs, is DENIED as MOOT. Should Plaintiffs seek to obtain relief for any 

constitutional or other federal law transgressions that may arise in the future, Plaintiffs are 

strongly advised to seek relief in the proper venue, presumptively the Central District of 

California. There being no other remaining claims in this action, the Clerk of Court is 

ordered to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00316-JM-BLM Document 21 Filed 08/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5