Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01238-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEOBARDO LERMA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ALBERTO GONZALEZ, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-01238-AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 14]

At the time he filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner was detained by the United States Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (“BICE”). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending before the court

is Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

In the petition filed, Petitioner alleges that his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1231(a)(2) is indefinite and violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Petitioner

Case 1:06-cv-01238-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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 2

also asserts that his detention is in violation of Respondent’s statutory authority. 

On February 15, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this petition as moot. 

Petitioner has not responded to Respondent’s motion.

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution

deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler,

464 U.S. 67, 70 104 S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (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, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183 (1984). The Federal

Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants

before them” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 406 (1971) per

curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-

464 (1937). To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant “must have

suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Iron

Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70, 104 S.Ct. at 375; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S.

26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1617, 1924 (1976); NAACP, Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.

In the present case, Respondent provides evidence that Petitioner has been removed

and is no longer in detention. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is rendered moot when the

petitioner is released from custody, unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that some

collateral, ongoing consequence would result without habeas relief. See Spencer v. Kemma,

523 U.S. 1, 14 (1998). Here, no such collateral consequence is alleged. Accordingly, the

court finds that this petition has been rendered moot.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1) That Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED;

2) That this petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot;

3) That the Clerk of the Court be directed to terminate all pending motions, enter

Case 1:06-cv-01238-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

judgment for Respondent and close this case. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01238-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 3