(HC) Lin v. Valinken ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WEI LIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-01806-EPG-HC 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING 12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING 13 RICHARD VALINKEN, et al., CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 14 Respondents. (ECF No. 18) 15 16 Petitioner Wei Lin is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate 18 judge. (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 11, 13). 19 Petitioner is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China who is in the custody of 20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (ECF No. 1 at 4, 5).1 On December 30, 2019, 21 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1). In the petition, 22 Petitioner asserts violations of his right to due process in connection with his expedited removal 23 proceeding. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that he did not sign the reverse side of the I-860 form 24 as required by agency regulations, and thus, he was not advised of the charges against him and 25 did not have a change to refute the charges. (Id. at 12). Petitioner further alleges that he was 26 denied a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and that the 27 evidence admitted against him was fundamentally unfair. (Id. at 16). 1 Petitioner also moved for a stay of removal. (ECF No. 4). On March 17, 2020, the Court 2 denied the motion for stay of removal without prejudice. (ECF No. 15). 3 On May 28, 2020, Respondents filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition as moot 4 because Petitioner has been placed into regular removal proceedings before an Immigration 5 Judge. (ECF No. 18). Petitioner has not filed any opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the 6 time for doing so has passed. 7 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 8 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 9 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 10 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 11 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 12 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). 13 Here, the petition challenges Petitioner’s expedited removal proceeding on due process 14 grounds. As Petitioner has now been placed into a regular removal proceeding before an 15 Immigration Judge, (ECF No. 16-1), the undersigned finds that the instant habeas petition 16 challenging Petitioner’s expedited removal proceeding is moot. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 17 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or 18 ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III—'when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the 19 parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” (citation omitted)); Adarand 20 Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 224 (2000) (per curiam) (“It is no small matter to 21 deprive a litigant of the rewards of its efforts . . . . Such action on grounds of mootness would be 22 justified only if it were absolutely clear that the litigant no longer had any need of the judicial 23 protection that is sought.”). 24 Additionally, to the extent Petitioner attempts to preemptively litigate any issues that may 25 arise in his regular removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge, this Court lacks 26 jurisdiction to address his claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (“Judicial review of all questions of 27 law or fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the 4:40 VV VELOUR YS MMIC 2 PI UF ee PAY VM VI 1 | U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“[A] petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall 2 | be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal ....”). 3 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED; 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED as moot; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9! Dated: _ August 26, 2020 [Je heey 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28