Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01108/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01108-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL NERIO RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, 

Secretary,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01108 MJS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 16)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO 

THE PRESENT MATTER

Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 on February 23, 2015. Petitioner challenges his indefinite detainment by the 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). The parties have not 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native of El Salvador. Petitioner was taken into ICE custody on 

June 15, 2013, and asserts that he has been indefinitely detained since that date. In his

habeas petition, Petitioner asserts that his continued detention violated the doctrine 

stated by the United States Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S. 

Ct. 2491, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001). On September 23, 2013, Petitioner was ordered to 

Case 1:15-cv-01108-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 09/21/15 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

2

be removed from the United States. On August 18, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to 

dismiss the petition as moot. (ECF No. 16.) Over thirty (30) days have passed, and 

Petitioner has not filed a response.

II. ANALYSIS

Respondent contends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied

as moot. (ECF No. 16.) Respondent presents evidence to the Court that Petitioner was 

removed from the United States to El Salvador on August 12, 2015. Because a petition 

for habeas relief attacks issues regarding Petitioner's continued detention, this petition 

has become and remains moot. The case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2, 

of the United States Constitution "subsists through all stages of federal judicial 

proceedings ... The parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the 

lawsuit." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 1253-

54, 108 L. Ed. 2d 400 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). If it appears that the Court is 

without the power to grant the relief requested by a habeas petitioner, then that case is 

moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991).

The relief that Petitioner requested in his habeas petition, i.e., his release from 

continued and potentially indefinite detention, can no longer be granted by the Court. 

Therefore, this habeas action relating to his continued detention is moot. See Abdala v. 

I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that "there must be some remaining 

'collateral consequence' that may be redressed by success on the petition" in order to 

continue to seek habeas corpus relief); Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 775.

The United States Supreme Court has held that speculation and conjecture of 

future improper conduct is insufficient to defeat mootness and that the "the injury or 

threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical." City of 

L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02, 108-09 (1983). As Petitioner is no longer present in 

this country, there no real or immediate threat of injury of continued custody by 

Respondent. Petitioner's habeas petition alleging that his detention was unauthorized 

and unconstitutional is now moot. See Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957, 959 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Case 1:15-cv-01108-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 09/21/15 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

3

Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1064-65.

III. CONCLUSION

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot because the petition challenges 

only the legitimacy of Petitioner's continued detention. Petitioner has been removed from 

the United States. He is no longer detained. There is no existing case or controversy 

over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly the case is moot and it is 

recommended that the petition be dismissed.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the motion to 

dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot be GRANTED. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United 

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) 

and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner 

may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 

"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. The Court will then 

review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01108-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 3