The Court therefore cannot conclude at this stage that no effective relief could be granted on the Petition. Cf. Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F. Supp. 3d 984, 990 (C.D. Cal. 2018) ("Because Plaintiffs may be re-detained at any time, they retain a live interest in habeas relief."); Singh v. Acting Dir. of DHS-ICE, No. 5:19-CV-02417-GW-MAA, 2021 WL 674122, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021) ("Petitioner's conditional release has not rendered the Petition moot."); Farez-Espinoza v. Napolitano, No. 08 CIV. 11060HB, 2009 WL 1118098, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2009) (finding petitioner's release on revocable bond "fits comfortably within the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine"). Further, Petitioner seeks "injunctive relief enjoining Respondents from further unlawful detention of Petitioner."
Based on the limited information provided to it, the Court cannot determine if any claims in the Petition are rendered moot by Petitioner's release. See Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F.Supp.3d 984, 990 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (finding petitioners' claims continued to present a live controversy notwithstanding their release from detention because their release could be revoked) (citing Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010). At least one claim raised in the Petition, the denial of proper medical care, is not rendered moot by Petitioner's release.
Unlike section 1226(a), "[s]ection 1231(a)(6) could plausibly be read to contain an 'implicit time limit.'" Hoang v. Tran, 333 F. Supp. 3d 984, 995 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 843-44). Consequently, district courts within the Ninth Circuit have consistently held "that Diouf remains good law post-Jennings."
In an attempt to harmonize the two cases, some district courts have distinguished Abdala from Zegarra-Gomez by limiting Abdala's application to habeas petitions challenging only the length of detention. See Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F.Supp.3d 984, 990-91 (C.D. Cal 2018). Other district courts have adopted the general, more expansive view of Abdala, requiring the grounds for habeas relief redress the collateral consequences in cases other than those challenging the length of detention. See Paz v. California, 16-0003-GW-SS, 16-0112-GW-SS, 2019 WL 1581418, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2019).