Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03873/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03873-3/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1The petition names Peter D. Keisler as a Respondent in his

capacity as Attorney General of the United States. Because Michael

Mukasey is now the Attorney General, he is automatically

substituted for Mr. Keisler. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1) (if a

public officer who is a party to a lawsuit ceases to hold office,

the officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GUIDO,

Petitioner,

 v.

LT. DAVID SEPULVEDA, Jail

Administrator, Santa Clara County

Department of Correction, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-3873 CW

ORDER DENYING AS

MOOT PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Petitioner Jose Guido brings this action seeking a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his former

detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was

based on an incorrect interpretation of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA). Respondents David Sepulveda, Edward Flores,

Anthony M. Aiello, Julie Myers, Michael Chertoff and Michael

Mukasey1 oppose the petition. The matter was taken under

submission on the papers. Having considered all of the papers

Case 4:07-cv-03873-CW Document 18 Filed 05/08/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

submitted by the parties, the Court denies the petition as moot.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a Mexican national. He entered the United

States in 1987 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1989. In

1992, Petitioner plead guilty to a felony violation of California

Penal Code § 288(a) for committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a

child under the age of fourteen. He was sentenced to nine months

of incarceration, three years of probation, counseling and

community service. He was also ordered to register as a sex

offender pursuant to California Penal Code § 290. In 2003,

Petitioner was convicted of a misdemeanor for failing to register

as a sex offender. He was given a suspended sentence and placed on

probation for twenty-four months.

In March, 2007, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner, charging him with

being removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. ICE

also determined that Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and took him into custody, holding

him without bond. Petitioner moved for a bond re-determination

hearing. On April 20, 2007, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied

Petitioner’s motion, agreeing with the government that he was

subject to mandatory detention. Petitioner appealed this decision

to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA denied the

appeal on May 22, 2007.

On July 6, 2007, an IJ ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. 

Petitioner appealed this decision to the BIA as well. On July 27,

2007, while his appeal was pending, he filed the present habeas

Case 4:07-cv-03873-CW Document 18 Filed 05/08/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

action. The petition charges Respondents with incorrectly

interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) as imposing mandatory detention on

Petitioner. It also asserts that the procedures governing

Petitioner’s bond hearing did not comport with due process. The

petition seeks an order requiring Respondents to conduct a new bond

hearing that affords him due process and relies upon a correct

interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).

On November 26, 2007, the BIA denied Petitioner’s appeal of

his removal order. On November 30, 2007 at approximately 2:30

p.m., Petitioner moved the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

for a stay of removal. Thirty minutes later, Petitioner’s counsel

notified ICE that Petitioner had moved for a stay, and that a

temporary stay was therefore in effect. That same day, however,

Petitioner was removed to Mexico. It is not clear at what time the

removal took place.

On or about January 28, 2008, Petitioner allegedly attempted

to re-enter the United States illegally. He was arrested and is

now in custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in San

Diego, California. On March 5, 2008, a grand jury indicted

Petitioner of attempting to re-enter the United States after being

removed and of impersonating another when applying for entry into

the United States.

DISCUSSION

Respondents argue that Petitioner’s removal renders the

petition moot. Although being deported after filing a habeas

petition does not necessarily moot a petitioner’s claim, “[f]or a

habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the

Case 4:07-cv-03873-CW Document 18 Filed 05/08/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

petitioner’s release or deportation, . . . there must be some

remaining ‘collateral consequence’” arising from the deportation

that “may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. INS,

488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007).

While Petitioner’s removal may have collateral consequences,

such as a bar on his re-entry into the United States, those

consequences cannot be redressed by the relief he seeks here. This

action does not challenge the validity of Petitioner’s removal

order, as do the proceedings underway in the Ninth Circuit. It

challenges only the validity of ICE’s assertion that Petitioner’s

previous confinement was required under the mandatory detention

provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The most Petitioner could hope to

gain from the relief he seeks -- a new bond hearing -- would be his

release from ICE custody pending a determination on whether he was

removable. But Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and has

already been removed. Thus, the petition is moot. See id. at 1065

(finding habeas petition moot where the petitioner had been removed

and the petition challenged only the length of his previous

confinement).

Petitioner maintains that when he is released from his current

criminal confinement, he will likely be handed over to ICE and will

again be detained. Supporting this contention is the fact that ICE

has filed a detainer letter with the Metropolitan Correction

Center. But the Court cannot address the legality of Petitioner’s

potential future detention when the factual and legal bases for

that detention are not yet known. For example, it is not clear

that the detention would be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which

Case 4:07-cv-03873-CW Document 18 Filed 05/08/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

appears to apply only to aliens who have not yet been ordered

removed, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), which provides for

mandatory detention of aliens already ordered removed. Yet the

petition addresses only ICE’s allegedly incorrect interpretation of

the former statute. If the latter statute applies, the bond

hearing Petitioner seeks would be inapposite and would provide no

effective relief. In addition, it is not clear that the events

that have occurred since the petition was filed would not permit

Petitioner’s detention on some other basis. In short, the

circumstances surrounding any future detention are not sufficiently

developed to permit the lawfulness of such detention to be

adjudicated on the present petition.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas

corpus is DENIED as moot. If, at some future time, it appears that

Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, he may file another habeas

petition at that time. The clerk shall enter judgment and close

the file. Each party shall bear his or her own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/8/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03873-CW Document 18 Filed 05/08/08 Page 5 of 5