Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01589/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01589-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duc Quoc Bui
Petitioner
Loretta Lynch
Respondent

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUC QUOC BUI,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01589 MJS (HC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

(Doc. 15)

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

§ 2241 on October 19, 2015. Petitioner challenges his indefinite detainment by the 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a citizen of Vietnam. On October 1, 2014, Petitioner was ordered to 

be removed from the United States. He was taken into ICE custody on September 23, 

2014, and asserts that he has been indefinitely detained since that date. His habeas 

petition asserts that his continued detention violates the doctrine stated by the United 

States Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150 L. Ed. 

Case 1:15-cv-01589-MJS Document 17 Filed 03/15/16 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

2d 653 (2001).

On November 16, 2015, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. (ECF No. 

11.) Petitioner filed a traverse to the answer on November 30, 2015. (ECF No. 13.) On 

February 2, 2016, due to changed circumstances, namely Petitioner’s release from ICE

custody under an order of supervision, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition 

as moot. (ECF No. 15.) Petitioner was provided an opportunity to respond to the motion 

to dismiss, but failed to do so. (ECF No. 16.)

The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (ECF Nos. 7-8.)

II. ANALYSIS

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

as moot. (ECF No. 15.) Respondent presents evidence to the Court that Petitioner was 

released under supervision on February 1, 2016, and therefore no longer remains in ICE 

custody. Because a petition for habeas relief attacks issues regarding Petitioner's 

continued detention, this petition has become 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 detention, can no longer be granted by the Court, as he has already been 

released from said detention. 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, 

Case 1:15-cv-01589-MJS Document 17 Filed 03/15/16 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

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). Petitioner has not argued that there 

is a 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); 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 released from 

custody and is no longer detained. There is no existing case or controversy over which

this Court may exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly the case is moot and the petition must

be dismissed.

IV. ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED (Doc. 15.);

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot (Docs. 2, 14.); and

4. The Clerk is directed to close the case.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Because Petitioner is a federal detainee bringing a legitimate § 2241 petition, a certificate of 

appealability is not required. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Case 1:15-cv-01589-MJS Document 17 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 3