Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01380-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Allen
Defendant
Romulo Estuardo Coronado Sanchez
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROMULO ESTUARDO CORONADO 

SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

NATHAN ALLEN, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01380-SKO (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS [Doc. #10]

[14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He filed the instant petition on September 27, 2019, 

challenging his continued detention at Mesa Verde Detention Facility in Bakersfield, California. 

On December 2, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (Doc. 10.) 

Petitioner did not file an opposition.

Petitioner states that an Immigration Judge granted him permission to depart the United 

States voluntarily on or before September 12, 2019. He alleges that the Bureau of Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement has continued to detain him without a custody hearing in violation of 

his due process rights. Respondent states that as Petitioner recently received the relief he sought,

a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, the petition is now moot. Respondent has submitted 

a copy of the order of the Immigration Judge which reflects that a custody hearing concerning 

Case 1:19-cv-01380-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 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

Petitioner’s status was held on November 19, 2019. (Doc. 10-1.) According to the order, the 

Immigration Judge determined that Petitioner posed a danger and flight risk. (Doc. 10-1.) The 

Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for change in custody status and ordered that he be 

detained without bond. (Doc. 10-1.) 

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 Federal 

Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before 

them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. 

Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). 

Insofar as Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought, Respondent is correct that the

instant petition is moot and should be dismissed. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District 

Judge to this case. 

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss the petition be GRANTED, and the petition be DISMISSED as moot.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies 

to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by 

mail) after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 

Case 1:19-cv-01380-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01380-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 3 of 3