(HC) Solis Vasquez v. Jennings ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASDRUBAL ELIAS SOLIS VASQUEZ, No. 1:20-cv-00137-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION AS MOOT 14 [Doc. 13] DAVID W. JENNINGS, et al., 15 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT Respondents. TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE 16 CASE 17 18 Petitioner is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On January 27, 2020, he filed the instant petition 20 challenging his continued detention at Mesa Verde Detention Facility in Bakersfield, California. 21 (Doc. 1.) On March 18, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot because 22 Petitioner has been released from immigration detention. (Doc. 13.) Because Petitioner has been 23 granted the relief he sought and his claims are now moot, the Court will DISMISS the petition.1 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss 26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 27 1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for all 28 purposes, including entry of final judgment. 1 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 2 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 3 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus 4 other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1 of the Rules 5 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(2) provides that the rules are “applicable to 6 proceedings for . . . habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in such proceedings is not set 7 forth in statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil 8 actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(2). 9 The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer 10 if the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in violation of the 11 state’s procedural rules. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using 12 Rule 4 to evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. 13 Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review 14 motion to dismiss for state procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 15 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). Thus, a respondent can file a motion to dismiss after the Court orders a 16 response, and the Court should use Rule 4 standards to review the motion. See Hillery, 533 F. 17 Supp. at 1194 & n. 12. 18 In this case, Respondent's motion to dismiss is based on mootness. Because Respondent's 19 motion to dismiss is similar in procedural standing to a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 20 state remedies or for state procedural default, the Court will review Respondent’s motion to 21 dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule 4. 22 B. Mootness 23 Respondent contends that the instant petition is now moot because Petitioner has been 24 released from immigration detention. Respondent submits a copy of an Order of Supervision 25 dated March 17, 2020, which shows Petitioner was placed on supervision and permitted to be at 26 large under certain conditions. (Doc. 13-1 at 1.) Petitioner signed the Order of Supervision on 27 March 17, 2020. (Doc. 13-1 at 1.) 28 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 1 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 2 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A 3 case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally 4 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal 5 Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before 6 them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. 7 Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). When a prisoner is released from custody, any 8 habeas petition challenging continued detention becomes moot. Fender v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 9 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir.1988). 10 Because Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought and is no longer in detention, the 11 petition is now moot. 12 ORDER 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 14 1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is GRANTED; 15 2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as moot; 16 3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case. 17 This order terminates this action in its entirety. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Sheila K. Oberto 20 Dated: March 19, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00137

Filed Date: 3/19/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024