Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01133/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01133-2/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

RODOLFO POBLADOR AGNER )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

)

HON. ALBERTO GONZALEZ, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-CV-01133-LJO WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR MOOTNESS

[Doc. 13]

Petitioner is an Immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On February 1, 200, the court entered an order requiring Respondents to show cause

within 45 days why the petition should not be granted. On February 24, 2007, Respondents

filed a motion to dismiss this petition for mootness. Petitioner has not opposed the motion.

DISCUSSION

In support of their motion to dismiss, Respondents submit a copy of a DACS Custody

Case 1:06-cv-01133-LJO-WMW Document 16 Filed 03/22/07 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

On March 1, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 1

(November 25, 2002) went into effect creating the Department of Homeland Security. This Act

abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service and restructured the entire immigration

system See, 6 U.S.C. § 291 (2003). As part of this reorganization, a Secretary of Homeland

Security has been designated as the head of the department. See, 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2003). The

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”) was created and is tasked with

enforcement functions relating to the detention and removals of aliens formerly handled by the

INS. 

2

Summary Inquiry indicating that Petitioner was removed on January 2, 2007. Petitioner is

thus no longer in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(BICE). Respondents therefore request that the petition be dismissed as moot. 1

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 (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

(1984). The Court has no 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 (1990); Defunis

v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-28 (9th Cir.

1996). In other words, a petitioner must have suffered an actual injury that is traceable to the

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; 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 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

Case 1:06-cv-01133-LJO-WMW Document 16 Filed 03/22/07 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 3

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

(1982), but this rule had 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 Respondents, 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. 

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 (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 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 (1979).

Petitioner has not opposed the Custody Summary Inquiry 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. 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

Case 1:06-cv-01133-LJO-WMW Document 16 Filed 03/22/07 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 4

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

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

removal of Petitioner 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.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2) This petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as moot;

3) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01133-LJO-WMW Document 16 Filed 03/22/07 Page 4 of 4