(HC) Ishibolecho v. Andrews DHS Attorney Gen ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESPOIRE ISHIBOLECHO, No. 1:24-cv-00679-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AS 13 MOOT [Doc. 15], DISMISSING PETITION, v. AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 14 ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, et al., 16 Respondents. 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. He commenced this action by filing his initial 20 habeas petition on May 15, 2024. (Doc. 1.) All parties consented to the jurisdiction of the 21 magistrate judge, and the case was assigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings, 22 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docs. 11, 13, 14.) 23 On June 24, 2024, Petitioner submitted a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus 24 in this Court challenging his indefinite detention. (Doc. 10.) On August 9, 2024, Respondent filed 25 a motion to dismiss the petition as moot because Petitioner has been released from immigration 26 detention on an order of supervision. (Doc. 15.) Petitioner did not oppose the motion. Because 27 Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought and his claims are now moot, the Court will 28 GRANT Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 1 DISCUSSION 2 Respondent contends that the instant petition is moot because Petitioner has been released 3 from immigration detention. Respondent submits a copy of an Order of Supervision dated 4 August 9, 2024, which shows Petitioner was placed on supervision and permitted to be at large 5 under certain conditions. (Doc. 15-3 at 1-5.) Petitioner signed the Order of Supervision on the 6 same date. (Doc. 15-3 at 1.) 7 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 8 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 9 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A 10 case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally 11 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal 12 Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before 13 them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. 14 Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). When a prisoner is released from custody, any 15 habeas petition challenging continued detention becomes moot. Fender v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 16 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir.1988). 17 Because Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought and is no longer in detention, the 18 petition is now moot. 19 ORDER 20 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED; 22 2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and 23 3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case. 24 This order terminates this action in its entirety. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: September 10, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28