Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05820/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05820-0/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

HUAN THIU LY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY )

GENERAL, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-5820 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT

[Doc. 11]

Petitioner was detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“BICE”) 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 72-302. 

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

§ 1231(a)(2) is indefinite and violates Petitioner’s substantive and procedural due process

rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States

Constitution. Petitioner also asserts that his detention is in violation of Respondent’s

Case 1:04-cv-05820-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 5
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

statutory authority. 

On October 12, 2004, the court issued an order requiring Respondent to show cause

why the petition should not be granted. On October 22, 2004, the copy of the court’s order

sent to Petitioner was returned with a notation, “ return to sender out of custody.” On

December 17, 2004, the court’s order was reserved on Respondent. On January 3, 2005,

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is based on the claim that this action is moot because

Petitioner has been released from custody. In support of this claim, Respondent has provided

a copy of a DACS Custody Summary Inquiry, which indicates that Petitioner was released

from custody on August 11, 2004.

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 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 Court has

not power to decide a case that does not affect the rights of litigants in the case before it.

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-478, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 1254 (1990);

Defunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 1705 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75

F.3d 517, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1996). In other words, petitioner must have suffered an actual

injury that is traceable to respondent and can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. 

Spencer v. Kemna, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983 (1998); Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70, 104 S.Ct. at 375;

NAACP, Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.

In Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth Circuit reviewed the

Case 1:04-cv-05820-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 5
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

 The Court notes that the facts of this case differ from Picrin-Peron in that the petitioner

in Picrin-Peron was not in state custody and the INS had submitted a declaration claiming that

unless the petitioner committed a crime, travel documents were issued, or INS law changed, the

petitioner would not return to the INS’s custody. Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 776. In this case,

petitioner’s current incarceration in state prison makes petitioner’s possible future detention by

the INS more likely. However, unlike other civil actions, petitioner is only requesting release

from the INS’s custody, which has already been accomplished. And, petitioner does not meet

any of the recognized exceptions to mootness as discussed infra. 

3

case of a Cuban national who had been ordered excluded by the INS but whom remained in

the INS’s custody because the INS was unable to physically remove the alien to Cuba. Id. at

774. By the time the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case, however, the petitioner had been

released from the INS’s custody. Id. at 774-775. The Ninth Circuit noted that normally the

government’s cessation of an illegal action which the government can resume at any time

does not render a case moot, see, e.g., Mesquite v. Alladin’ Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289,

102 S.Ct. 1070, 1074 (1982), but this rule has never been applied to habeas corpus petitions. 

Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at775-556. The Ninth Circuit then found that because the habeas

petition only requested the petitioner’s release from the INS’s custody and the INS had

released the petitioner, there was no further relief the court could provide. Id. at 776. The

Ninth Circuit then dismissed the action. Id. at 776.

Pursuant to the reasoning of Picrin-Person, this instant case is moot. The petition

alleges that Petitioner is being indefinitely confined and seeks his immediate releases from

Immigration custody. According to the documentation provided by the Respondent,

Petitioner has been released from custody. Accordingly, there is no further relief the Court

can provide, See Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 776, and a decision in Petitioner’s favor will not

redress any injury suffered by petitioner.1

The mootness rule is subject to a “capable of repetition yet evading review”

exception. See Nebraska Press Assn. V. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 546, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2797

(1976); GTE California, INC v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 39 F.3d 940, 945 (1994). 

The exception is met when: (1) the “duration of the challenged conduct is too brief ever to be

Case 1:04-cv-05820-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 05/02/05 Page 3 of 5
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 4

fully litigated prior to its cessation;” and (2) there is a reasonable probability that the

petitioner will again be subject to the challenged activity. Mitchell, 75 F.3d at 528; GTE

California, 39 F.3d at 945; see also County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99

S.Ct. 1379, 1383 (1979).

Petitioner has not opposed the Notification provided by Respondent and thus, has not

argued that his detention by the BICE is “capable of repetition yet evading review.” The

Court notes that Petitioner’s confinement by BICE is capable of repetition, and it is highly

probable that Petitioner will again be subject to the challenged activity should he find himself

again in BICE custody for violation of the supervisory conditions. Should such

circumstances occur, there is no reason why petitioner cannot again file a habeas corpus

petition concerning the alleged violation of his liberty interest. That such a petition is

capable of addressing Petitioner’s injury is supported by the numerous habeas corpus

petitions which are currently being resolved by this Court concerning aliens ordered deported

but whom remain in BICE custody because they have not yet been removed. See Fed. R.

Evid. 201(b) (court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned).

Further, this Court cannot determine if the BICE’s possible future confinement of

Petitioner will violate petitioner’s Constitutional rights. Any fear that the BICE may take an

action against petitioner in the future does not create a case or controversy because such a

case is not ripe for adjudication. See United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 91, 67

S.Ct. 556, 565 (1947), overruled on other grounds by Adler v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 485,

72 S.Ct. 380 (1952); Associated Gen. Contractors v. Coalition for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d

1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991). “Concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not

abstractions are requisite” for the adjudication of a case. United Pub. Workers, 330 U.S. at

75, 67 S.Ct. at 564.

Thus, Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition must be dismissed because the BICE’s

Case 1:04-cv-05820-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 05/02/05 Page 4 of 5
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 5

release of petitioner from custody has rendered the habeas corpus petition moot. In addition,

the Court cannot review potential future detention of Petitioner by BICE after he is released

from custody because such an issue is not yet ripe for adjudication.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion be GRANTED

and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Magistrate Judge

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 fifteen (15) 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 Report 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 2, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05820-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 05/02/05 Page 5 of 5