Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01797/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01797-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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

CHAO KANG LIN, ) 1:09-cv-01797-LJO-JLT HC

)

) FINDINGS ANDRECOMMENDATIONTOGRANT

 ) RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

) FOR MOOTNESS (Doc. 9)

) 

Petitioner, ) ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

) OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

v. )

) 

) 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., )

Attorney General, ) 

 )

)

Respondent. )

 )

Petitioner is detained by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“ICE”) and is proceeding with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Rule 302. 

Petitioner originally filed documents with this Court on October 13, 2009. (Doc. 1). The

petition alleges that, at the time of filing, Petitioner was in the custody of the United States Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In the petition, Petitioner alleges that he is a native

of China, that he is subject to a final order of removal from the United States as of April 7, 2009, and

1

Case 1:09-cv-01797-LJO-JLT Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 4
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

that he has been in continuous custody of ICE since that date, a period of more than six months at the

time the petition was filed. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-4). Petitioner alleges that his detention pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) 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. (Doc. 1, p. 6). 

Petitioner also asserts that his detention is in violation of Respondent’s statutory authority. (Id.). 

After an initial screening, the Court concluded that, if proven, Petitioner’s allegations might

require that the petition be granted and that Petitioner be released from Respondent’s custody. 

Accordingly, on November 10, 2009, the Court issued Respondent an Order to Show Cause why the

petition should not be granted and required Respondent to file a response within forty-five days. 

(Doc. 5). On December 28, 2009, Respondent filed his response, arguing that the petition should be

denied on its merits. (Doc. 7). 

On May 24, 2010, before the Court could issue a decision on the merits of the petition,

Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, contending that Petitioner has been released from

ICE custody and therefore the petition is moot and the case should be dismissed. (Doc. 9). 

DISCUSSION

A federal court may grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus only if the petitioner can show

that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2241(c). Habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to § 2241 remains an available forum for

statutory and constitutional challenges to the authority of the Attorney General to order postremoval-period detention. In such a proceeding, the petitioner is not seeking review of the Attorney

General’s exercise of discretion but is challenging the extent of his authority to detain under the

statute, which is not a matter of discretion. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (2001);

Magana Pizano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 200 F.3d 603, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Respondent contends that the instant petition is moot because Petitioner has been released

from ICE custody. The Court agrees.

The case or controversy requirement of 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

2

Case 1:09-cv-01797-LJO-JLT Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 4
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

S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); N.A.A.C.P., 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 (1982). 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 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins.

Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937). 

In the instant case, the only issue properly before this Court is the constitutionality of

Petitioner’s ongoing detention by Respondent and the only relief which the Court could afford to 1

Petitioner in these proceedings would be an order releasing Petitioner from Respondent’s custody, if

the Court determined that his continued detention by ICE was unlawful. 

The record now before the Court establishes that Petitioner was released from Respondent’s

custody on March 16, 2010. (Doc. 9, Ex. 1). Accordingly, there is no further relief that the Court

can afford Petitioner and therefore the petition is moot. Hence, Respondent’s motion to dismiss for

mootness should be GRANTED and the Petition should be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9), should be GRANTED; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), should be DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim as it is now MOOT.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the District Judge assigned to this case,

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice

for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty (20) days after

On May 11, 2005, Public Law 109-13 was enacted. Section 106 of that law (i.e., “RIDA”), is entitled “Judicial

1

Review of Orders of Removal.” Section 106 amends 28 U.S.C. § 1252, providing in pertinent part as follows:

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law (statutory or non-statutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States

Code, or any other habeas corpus provision...a petition for review filed in an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with

this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any

provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e)....”(Emphasis supplied.)

The plain language of Section 106 thus divests the federal district court of jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases

involving challenges to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, and places exclusive jurisdiction for judicial

review of such orders in the federal appeals court for the district in which the removal order was issued. Thus, unlawful

detention is the only issue this Court has jurisdiction to consider under RIDA.

3

Case 1:09-cv-01797-LJO-JLT Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 4
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

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.” 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: May 26, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4

Case 1:09-cv-01797-LJO-JLT Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 4 of 4