Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01567-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 KEO THAKHAMPHOU, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et. al., )

 )

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:09-cv-01567-JLT HC

ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF

COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND

CLOSE FILE

At the time of filing of the petition, Petitioner was detained by the United States Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and was 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. On September 4, 2009, Petitioner

filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 

(Doc. 2). 

In the petition, Petitioner, a native of Laos and subject to a final order of removal, 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. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner also asserts that his detention is in violation of

Respondent’s statutory authority. (Id., p. 5). 

Case 1:09-cv-01567-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/29/10 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 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s 1

discretion. See, Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

On December 18, 2009, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not

be granted. (Doc. 8). On January 20, 2010, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss,

contending that because Petitioner had been released from ICE custody on an order of supervision and

was no longer in Respondent’s custody, the petition was moot and should be dismissed. (Doc. 8). 

Attached to the motion to dismiss is an exhibit that is a copy of an “Immigration and Customs

Enforcement DACS Custody Summary Inquiry,” indicating that Petitioner was released from the

Kern County Jail on September 16, 2009. (Doc. 8, Attach. A). 

DISCUSSION

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

that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A habeas corpus

petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. 

Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9 Cir.1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 th

(1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. However,

the petition must “allege facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or detention,” 28

U.S.C. § 2242, and the Petitioner must make specific factual allegations that would entitle him to

habeas corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9 Cir.1990); United th

States v. Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9 Cir.1989). If it may be conclusively determined from the th

face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on the grounds alleged, then the petition

must be dismissed. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases ; Peterson v. Wilson, 373 F.2d 737, 1

738 (9 Cir.1967). th

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court is required to make a

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. “If it plainly appears from the face of

the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4

of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990).

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

Case 1:09-cv-01567-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/29/10 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

On May 11, 2005, Public Law 109-13 was enacted. Section 106 of that law (i.e., “RIDA”), is entitled “Judicial 2

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.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Petitioner’s ongoing detention by Respondent, and the only relief which Petitioner seeks, and which 2

the Court could afford to Petitioner in these proceedings is an order releasing him from custody, in the

event that the Court were to determine that his continued detention by ICE was unlawful. 

The document submitted by Respondent establishes that Petitioner was released from

Respondent’s custody on September 16, 2009. (Doc. 8, Attach. A). Moreover, a review of the

Court’s own electronic docket shows that Petitioner was mailed a copy of the Court’s December 18,

2009 Order to Show Cause at the jail where Petitioner had been detained, but that the document was

returned to the Clerk of the Court with an indication, “undeliverable, return to sender, not in custody.” 

(Elec. Doc. Entry dated December 29, 2009). The record therefore supports a findings that Petitioner

has been released from Respondent’s custody under conditions of supervision.

As mentioned, the only relief the Court can afford Petitioner in these proceedings is release

from custody, a fact that has now occurred independent of any action by this Court. Since there is no

further relief that the Court can afford Petitioner, Respondent’s motion to dismiss for mootness is

appropriate and will be GRANTED. 

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8), is GRANTED; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED as MOOT for failure to

state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted; and,

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-01567-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 3