Opinion
21cv936-MMA-MSB
06-22-2021
ALFREDO HERNANDEZ-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, et al., Respondents.
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge
Petitioner Alfredo Hernandez-Jimenez, a detainee previously in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Doc. No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court summarily DISMISSES the petition.
Discussion
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court is required to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. “If it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, ” the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Challenges to the “manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court's discretion. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
The petition is subject to summary dismissal on several grounds. At the time he initiated this action, Petitioner was housed at Imperial Regional Detention Facility, and he sought a writ based on the allegedly unconstitutional conditions of his confinement. See id. The Court issued an order granting Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. No. 2. The Clerk sent Petitioner a copy of the order via U.S. Mail at his address of record at Imperial Regional Detention Facility; the U.S. Postal Service returned the mail as undeliverable and marked “DETAINEE DEPARTED.” See Doc. No. 5. “[A] petitioner's release from detention under an order of supervision ‘moots his challenge to the legality of his extended detention.'” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002)).
Moreover, the writ of habeas corpus extends only to a person in custody under the authority of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Relief under Section 2241 is available only if a federal inmate can show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Because the “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir.2009) (“The text of the statute makes clear, and the Supreme Court has confirmed, that ‘custody' is a jurisdictional prerequisite to habeas review under § 2241(c)(3).”) (citing Hensley v. Mun. Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973)).
And this Court's jurisdiction also depends upon the existence of a live “case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir.1996). The Court has no authority to decide “‘questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before [it].'” DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974) (citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)). Petitioner is apparently no longer housed at the facility, the alleged conditions of which gave rise to the sole grounds for his petition. The Court's resolution of the issues raised in the petition would not impact Petitioner's rights, nor can the Court afford Petitioner any remedy. Accordingly, the petition is moot. See DeFunis, 416 U.S. at 316; Mitchell, 75 F.3d at 528.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice and without leave to amend. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (petition for habeas corpus may be dismissed without leave to amend if “it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted.”). The Court DIRECTS Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.