Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00500/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00500-1/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

3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS

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

Gabriel Sanchez Lopez,

Petitioner,

v.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS

ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

[ECF No. 1.]

On February 24, 2016, Petitioner Gabriel Sanchez Lopez (“Petitioner”) filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus against Respondent United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Service (“Respondent” or “USCIS”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

In his petition, Petitioner explained that he was being held on an immigration charge and 

was detained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(b). (Id. at 1, 4.) Petitioner sought an order 

from the Court releasing him from detention on conditional parole or reasonable bond 

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 10.)

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for leave to amend his petition for writ of 

habeas corpus on March 16, 2016. (Dkt. No. 2.) Specifically, Petitioner sought to name 

the proper respondent parties—the United States Department of Homeland Security and 

CCA Warden John Weaver—in the caption of his petition. (Id.) The Court granted 

Case 3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS

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

Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend on September 28, 2016 and directed Petitioner to 

file and serve his amended petition on the proper respondents by October 28, 2016. (Dkt. 

No. 3.) Petitioner has not filed an amended petition as of the date of entry of this Order.

On May 24, 2017, the Court directed Respondent to file and serve a responsive 

memorandum on or by June 9, 2017. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Court directed Respondent to 

inform the Court of Petitioner’s detention status in the response and to include any and all 

documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised by the Petition. (Id.) The

Court’s May 24, 2017 Order was returned as undeliverable as to Petitioner. (Dkt. No. 6.)

Respondent duly complied with the Court’s Order and filed a response on June 9, 

2017. (Dkt. No. 7.) Respondent urges the Court to deny the petition on the following 

grounds. First, Petitioner failed to name the appropriate respondent. Second, Petitioner 

was released on bond on June 9, 2016, and his case has been moved to Los Angeles, at 

his request. Third, Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as no 

violation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(b) occurred. Finally, Petitioner automatically became 

eligible for a Rodriguez bond hearing after six months, regardless of how quickly his 

removal proceedings were processed.

For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus as moot. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Section 2241 confers jurisdiction on federal courts to entertain petitions for habeas 

corpus from any person claiming to be held “in custody in violation of the Constitution or 

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 22241(c)(3). However, the Court lacks

jurisdiction to decide cases that are moot because the Court’s constitutional authority 

extends only to actual cases or controversies. Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 

U.S. 67, 70–71 (1983). A petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot where a petitioner’s 

claim for relief cannot be redressed by a favorable decision of the court issuing a writ of 

habeas corpus. Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000–01 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). Accordingly, when, because of intervening 

Case 3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS

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

events, a court cannot give any effectual relief in favor of the petitioner, the proceeding 

shall be dismissed as moot. Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996); McCullough v. 

Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2013); Kemna, 523 U.S. at 18.

DISCUSSION1

Petitioner’s claim is moot because the relief requested has been effectuated by his 

release on bond. When a court is unable to provide “effective relief,” it must dismiss the 

claim as moot because it lacks jurisdiction. McCullough, 726 F.3d at 1059; Pub. Util. 

Comm’n of the State of Cal. v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996); Kemna, 523 

U.S. at 18.

Petitioner requested the Court to order his release “from detention on conditional 

parole or reasonable bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a).” (Dkt. No. 1 at 10.) Subsequent 

to filing this petition, Petitioner was released on bond on June 9, 2016. (Dkt. No. 7 at 75.)

Petitioner has already received the relief requested by way of his bond release. Therefore, 

Petitioner’s claim is moot, and the Court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition. 

Cf. Miguel-Miguel v. Kane, No. 2:07-CV-01815 JWS, 2007 WL 4351403, at *1 (D. Ariz. 

Dec. 11, 2007) (holding that petitioner’s claim was moot because the requested release 

from custody had already been granted). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

1 Petitioner’s claim for habeas relief is also without merit. Petitioner contends that he is due release 

“from detention on conditional parole or reasonable bond” because his 8 C.F.R § 208.31(b) reasonable 

fear determination was not concluded within ten days. (Dkt. No. 1.) Respondent argues that there was no 

violation of 8 C.F.R § 208.31(b), because Petitioner’s claim was referred to the asylum office on January 

21, 2016, and a final determination was entered on February 2, 2016. (Dkt. No. 7 at 4, 64.) Even if 

Petitioner’s reasonable fear determination were delayed, the short delay would have no bearing on the 

requested habeas relief. An immigrant detainee is not entitled to a bond hearing until after a six-month 

period. Diouf v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 1222, 1233 (9th Cir. 2008). Petitioner was not entitled to his bond 

hearing until June 9, 2016. He received his hearing on June 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 7 at 71.)

2 Although release on bond, pending execution of a challenged sentence, satisfies the “in custody”

requirement of § 2241, Hensley v. Mun. Ct., San Jose Milpitas Jud. Dist., Santa Clara Cty., Cal., 411 

U.S. 345, 349 (1973), Petitioner’s requested relief was not for unconditional release, but for supervised 

release. Thus, Petitioner’s claim is moot, as the relief requested has already been granted.

Case 3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS

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

Dated: July 27, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS Document 8 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4