Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01847/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01847-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS MIRANDA-TRUJILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

MACK WIMBISH, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 06-1847 OWW DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. 4]

Petitioner is detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”)

and is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner is represented by counsel. 

 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 20, 2006. On

February 12, 2007, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. On March 19, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (Court

Doc. 4.) On April 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a statement of non-opposition to Respondent’s

Motion. (Court Doc. 7.) 

DISCUSSION

Respondent has provided the Court with a copy of the DACS Custody Summary Inquiry

showing Petitioner was released on March 13, 2007. See Exhibit A, Respondent’s Motion. 

Petitioner’s concedes such release and that the case is now moot. Accordingly, because

Petitioner is no longer in custody, the case is moot. The case or controversy requirement of

Case 1:06-cv-01847-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/18/07 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

27

28

2

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, 70 104 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 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).

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as MOOT is GRANTED; and

2. The case is DISMISSED and judgment shall be entered.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01847-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2