01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER,

Petitioner,

v.

NEIL CLARK,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1812-RSL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

Petitioner Vincent Daniel Hopper is a native and citizen of Trinidad. On October 31,

2005, petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was transferred from the Northern

District of California to this Court. (Dkt. #22). Petitioner challenges the legality of his custody

by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and seeks a stay of his removal

proceedings, claiming that this is a case of mistaken identity and that he is not the Wayne Ricky

Elison Rudder who is subject to removal, but is actually Vincent Daniel Hopper (a.k.a. Antolin

Andrews) who is a United States citizen. Petitioner has filed numerous subsequent pleadings in

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01812-RSL Document 66 Filed 05/04/06 Page 1 of 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1

 Dkts. #42, 44, 45, 52, 56, 57, 61, 64, 65.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

this case, all of which allege that he is a United States citizen and should not be held in ICE

custody.1 On January 17, 2006, respondent filed a return and motion to dismiss, arguing that the

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s claims. (Dkt. #34). On April 10, 2006,

respondent filed a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, notifying the Court that

petitioner is no longer in ICE custody or subject to removal proceedings and, therefore, the habeas

petition should be dismissed as moot. (Dkt. #58).

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, I recommend that petitioner’s habeas petition

(Dkt. #27) be DENIED and that respondents’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #34) be GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner has used or has been known by over fifty aliases, including Vincent Daniel

Hopper, Wayne Ricky Elison Rudder, and Antolin Andrews. (Dkt. #37 at L508-509-Pt. 1; L567-

Pt. 1; L571-Pt. 1). Petitioner’s fingerprints match the fingerprints of an alien, Wayne Ricky Elison

Rudder, who is a native and citizen of Trinidad and who was admitted to the United States on or

about March 7, 1974, as an immigrant. (Dkt. #37 at L383-84-Pt. 1; R1034-35-Pt. 1; R1021-Pt.

1).

On or about September 24, 1991, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service

(“INS”) issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), placing petitioner in deportation proceedings

and charging petitioner with being deportable from the United States under Sections

241(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), because of

his April 9 and 24, 1990, convictions for possession of a controlled substance. (Dkt. #37 at L555-

69-Pt. 1; R301-302-Pt. 1). Petitioner appeared for his deportation hearing before an Immigration

Case 2:05-cv-01812-RSL Document 66 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -3

Judge (“IJ”) and admitted the allegations contained in the OSC and conceded deportability as

charged. Instead of deportation, petitioner filed an application for waiver of inadmissability under

INA § 212(c) and an application for asylum and withholding of deportation. On July 26, 1993,

the IJ denied petitioner’s application for a waiver of inadmissability and his application for asylum

and withholding of deportation, and ordered petitioner deported from the United States to

Trinidad on the charges contained in the OSC. (Dkt. #37 at R999-1021-Pt. 1).

Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). On

November 4, 1993, the BIA affirmed the decision of the IJ and dismissed petitioner’s appeal of

his deportation order. (Dkt. #37 at R1022-31-Pt. 1). On November 18, 1993, petitioner filed a

direct appeal of the BIA’s decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Dkt. # 37 at R753-54-

Pt. 1). Petitioner also filed a Petition for Emergency Stay of Deportation in the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which was dismissed on December 6, 1993,

for improper venue. (Dkt. #37 at R755-57-Pt. 1). On December 8, 1993, petitioner filed a

Motion for Emergency Stay of Deportation with the United States Supreme Court, which was

denied the same day. (Dkt. #37 at R842-872-Pt. 1; L278-Pt. 1). On February 11, 1994, the Ninth

Circuit denied petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On December 9, 1993, petitioner was

removed from the United States to Trinidad. (Dkt. #37 at L269-70-Pt. 1; L274-Pt. 1).

On January 14, 1994, petitioner illegally reentered the United States without inspection.

On August 18, 2005, petitioner was arrested by a Special Agent of the Department of Homeland

Security (“DHS”). Upon his arrest, petitioner claimed that he was Daniel Vincent Hopper, born

in Los Angeles, California, and that he had been deported to Trinidad in 1993 illegally. (Dkt. #37

at R996-98-Pt. 1). A fingerprint comparison performed by the DHS Forensic Laboratory showed

Case 2:05-cv-01812-RSL Document 66 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -4

that petitioner’s fingerprints match the fingerprints of an alien who went by the alias Ricky Elison

Rudder who had been deported to Trinidad on December 9, 1993. (Dkt. #37 at R1033-34-Pt. 1).

On August 18, 2005, petitioner was served with a Warrant for Arrest of Alien, a Notice of

Custody Determination, and a Notice to Appear, placing petitioner in removal proceedings and

charging petitioner as removable for entering the United States without being admitted or paroled,

and for reentering the United States after being ordered deported without being admitted or

paroled. (Dkt. #37 at L530-35-Pt. 1).

On August 3, 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Dkt. #22, Attach. 2). On October

19, 2005, United States District Judge Martin Jenkins transferred the case to this Court because

petitioner was confined at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, and was in

removal proceedings in this district. (Dkt. #22, Attach. 22). Petitioner has filed numerous

subsequent pleadings in this case, including two motions to compel, a motion to stay, a motion for

injunction, a motion for issuance of the writ, a motion to appoint counsel, and a motion for judicial

notice. (Dkts. #42, 44, 45, 52, 56, 57, 61, 64, 65). On February 10, 2006, respondent filed a

Return and Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. #34).

On March 23, 2006, petitioner was transferred to the custody of the Tacoma Police

Department for extradition to California pursuant to a September 1, 2005, warrant for petitioner’s

arrest for a parole violation. (Dkt. #59). On March 28, 2006, ICE filed a motion in the

Immigration Court requesting that petitioner’s pending removal proceedings be administratively

closed because petitioner is no longer in ICE custody. On March 29, 2006, the IJ issued an Order

administratively closing petitioner’s removal proceedings. (Dkt. #58, Ex. B). On April 10, 2006,

Case 2:05-cv-01812-RSL Document 66 Filed 05/04/06 Page 4 of 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -5

respondent filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Opposition to

Petitioner’s Requests for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. (Dkt. #58).

III. DISCUSSION

Respondent asserts that petitioner is no longer in ICE custody or subject to removal

proceedings and, therefore, petitioner’s habeas petition should be dismissed as moot. (Dkt. #58).

Respondent has submitted documents indicating that petitioner was transferred to the Pierce

County Jail on March 23, 2006, and that petitioner’s removal proceedings were administratively

closed on March 29, 2006, because petitioner was taken into state custody pursuant to an

outstanding warrant, and are considered no longer pending. (Dkt. #58, Exs. A, B). The Court

agrees that this matter appears to be moot. Although petitioner’s habeas petition requests several

forms of relief, the gravamen of the petition is that petitioner should be released from ICE custody

and his removal proceedings should be stayed. Because petitioner is no longer in ICE custody or

subject to removal proceedings, the Court finds that petitioner’s habeas petition should be

dismissed as moot. See, e.g., Cooney v. Edwards, 971 F.2d 345, 346 (9th Cir. 1992)(holding that

the District Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims that had become either moot or unripe).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that respondents’ motion to dismiss be granted,

and that the action be dismissed without prejudice. A proposed Order accompanies this Report

and Recommendation.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2005.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01812-RSL Document 66 Filed 05/04/06 Page 5 of 5