Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00120/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00120-0/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 (federal)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR E. AVENDANO MORALES,

Petitioner,

Case No. 14-cv-120-BAS(KSC)

ORDER DENYING PETITION AS

MOOT AND DISMISSING

ACTION

v.

JACK W. BENNETT, et al.,

Respondents.

On January 17, 2014, Petitioner Cesar E. Avendano Morales filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting that this Court release him

from custody or order that he be afforded another bond hearing. At the time, Petitioner

was detained by the Department of Homeland Security. 

On April 29, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Respondents to file a

short status report regarding the status of Petitioner’s removal proceedings and related

appeals. The order mailed to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable with a note that

Petitioner was no longer at the facility that he identified in his contact information and

that no forwarding address was available. (ECF No. 31.) Respondents filed a status

- 1 - 14cv120

Case 3:14-cv-00120-BAS-KSC Document 33 Filed 06/08/15 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

report informing the Court that, among other things, Petitioner was removed to

Guatemala on January 30, 2015. (Status Report Ex. U.) Respondents submit a copy

of the executed warrant of removal / deportation. (Id.)

I. ANALYSIS

“Article III of the Constitution limits federal courtsto the adjudication of actual,

ongoing controversies between litigants.” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199

(1988). “[F]ederal courts may not ‘give opinions upon moot questions or abstract

propositions.’” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (quoting

Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). “This means that, throughout the litigation,

the [petitioner] ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable

to the [respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” 

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citation omitted); see also Murphy v. Hunt,

455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam) (“In general, a case becomes moot when the

issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in

the outcome.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Simply put, federal

courts lack jurisdiction to consider moot questions. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7

(“throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an

actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable

judicial decision’”) (citation omitted); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246

(1971) (per curiam) (federal courts do not have jurisdiction to consider moot claims).

“Deportation from the United States after filing a habeas petition does not

necessarily moot a petitioner’s claim.” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.

2007). “For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the

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

consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Id. at 1064. If the

habeas petition raises claims that were fully resolved by release from custody, then the

petition becomes moot “because successfulresolution of their pending claims could no

- 2 - 14cv120

Case 3:14-cv-00120-BAS-KSC Document 33 Filed 06/08/15 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

longer provide the requested relief.” Id. at 1065.

Here,Respondents confirmthat Petitioner wasremoved to Guatemala on January

30, 2015. (Status Report Ex. U.) Consequently, the claims asserted in the petition are

now moot. Because he is no longer in immigration custody and the petition only

challenges Petitioner’s immediate custody, there is no relief that the Court can give to

Petitioner. See Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1064-65; see also Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 995

(9th Cir. 1999) (en banc); Ferry v. Gonzalez, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006).

Petitioner has not otherwise asserted any collateral consequences of his federal

custody or removal that his petition can redress. See Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1064-65. The

petition is also not reviewable under the exception to mootness for cases that are

“capable of repetition, yet evading review.” See Murphy, 455 U.S. at 482.

Accordingly, the instant petition became moot when Petitioner was removed from the

United States and was released from immigration custody. As such, the petition is

subject to dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Spencer, 523 U.S.

at 7.

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the petition and

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 8, 2015

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv120

Case 3:14-cv-00120-BAS-KSC Document 33 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 3