Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01274/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01274-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Ho Hai Nguyen
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HO HAI NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01274-EPG-HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING AS 

MOOT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 

COURT TO CLOSE CASE

(ECF Nos. 1, 12)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States magistrate 

judge. (ECF Nos. 5, 7).

Petitioner is a citizen of Vietnam who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (“ICE”) on October 10, 2015. Petitioner was ordered removed by an Immigration 

Judge on January 6, 2016. Petitioner waived appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and 

the removal order became final that day. At the ninety-day custody review on April 3, 2016, it 

was determined that Petitioner should continue to be detained. (ECF No. 1 at 3).1

On August 29, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF 

No. 1). In the petition, Petitioner claims that he is being detained by ICE past the six-month 

presumptively reasonable period for removal and that his removal is not significantly likely to 

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-01274-EPG Document 13 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 2
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

occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. On October 26, 2016, Respondent filed a motion to 

dismiss for mootness. (ECF No. 12). Petitioner has not filed any opposition.

The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 

requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 

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.’” Spencer 

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). In the petition, Petitioner 

requests immediate release from ICE custody. (ECF No. 1 at 7). On October 7, 2016, Petitioner 

was released on an order of supervision. (ECF No. 12-1). Given that Petitioner has received the 

remedy to which he would have been entitled had this Court rendered a favorable judicial 

decision on his petition, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists. See Abdala v. INS, 

488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing with approval cases that found “a petitioner’s release 

from detention under an order of supervision ‘moot[ed] his challenge to the legality of his 

extended detention’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256–57 

(10th Cir. 2002)).

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01274-EPG Document 13 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 2