Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01272/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01272-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

- 1 - 06cv1272-J (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEMISI FONUA,

 Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv1272-J (NLS)

 

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S

PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, et al.,

Respondents.

Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Semisi Fonua’s (“Petitioner”) 28 U.S.C. § 2241

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Doc. No. 1.] Federal courts have jurisdiction to issue

a writ of habeas corpus to someone who “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Flores-Miramontes v.

INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000). The Department of Homeland Security

(“Respondent”) has timely filed a Return. [Doc. No. 5.] Petitioner has not filed a traverse. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice the Petition on

mootness grounds. 

Background

On March 20, 2004, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles, of grand Theft in violation of Section 486(a) of the California

Case 3:06-cv-01272-J-NLS Document 8 Filed 09/29/06 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 - 06cv1272-J (NLS)

Penal Code. (See Pet’r’s Pet. Ex. A.) On February 9, 2005, the Immigration Court found

that Petitioner’s Offense was an aggravated felony as defined by Section 101(a)(43)(G) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”) and ordered Petitioner removed and deported

to the Philippines, or in the alternative, to Tonga, pursuant to Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of

the Act. (See Pet’r’s Pet. Ex. B.) On June 23, 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals

affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge. (See Pet’r’s Pet. Ex. C.) 

On June 6, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant Petition asking this Court to be released

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] On July 20, 2006, Respondent timely filed a

Return. [Doc. No. 5.] Petitioner has not filed a Reply.

Discussion

The federal courts have jurisdiction to hear only cases that present a live

controversy. See Public Utils. Comm. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm., 100 F.3d

1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996). A case becomes moot when “the issues are no longer live or

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” unless the injury is “ ‘capable

of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” See Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1339 (9th Cir.

1985) (quoting Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S.

498, 515 (1911)). Mootness often occurs where “interim relief or events have completely

and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Lindquist v. Idaho State

Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1985); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440

U.S. 625, 631 (1979). Stated another way, if it appears that the court is “without power to

grant the relief requested, then the case is moot.” Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775

(9th Cir. 1991). 

Here, Petitioner’s Petition is moot because he was released from custody on or about

July 19, 2006 on the basis that “there is no reasonable likelihood that he can be repatriated

to his native Tonga, or the alternative country of removal, the Philippines.” (Resp’t’s

Return at 1.) Further, Petitioner has not argued that his claim is capable of repetition but

evading review. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for relief in the form of release from

Case 3:06-cv-01272-J-NLS Document 8 Filed 09/29/06 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 - 06cv1272-J (NLS)

custody is moot. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Section 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus IS DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2006

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes

All Parties

Case 3:06-cv-01272-J-NLS Document 8 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3