Babak v. ICE Field Office Dir.

Full title: ROMAN BABAK, Petitioner, v. ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Date published: Mar 31, 2020

CASE NO. C20-212-RSM-BAT (W.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2020)

Opinion

CASE NO. C20-212-RSM-BAT

03-31-2020

ROMAN BABAK, Petitioner, v. ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent.

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Roman Babak initiated this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas action to obtain release from immigration detention or a bond hearing. Dkt. 1. Subsequently, he was released on supervision. Dkt. 6-1. The Government now moves to dismiss this action as moot. Dkt. 6. Mr. Babak did not file an opposition.

Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). "For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the petitioner's release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining 'collateral consequence' that may be redressed by success on the petition." Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). Because Mr. Babak's habeas petition challenges only the length of his immigration detention, his claims were fully resolved by release from custody. See id. at 1065. Accordingly, there is no collateral consequence that could be redressed by the Court, and Mr. Babak's habeas petition should be dismissed as moot. See id.

Accordingly, the Court recommends the Government's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 6, be GRANTED; Mr. Babak's habeas petition be DENIED; and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore a notice of appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until the assigned District Judge enters a judgment in the case. Objections, however, may be filed and served upon all parties no later than April 21, 2020. The Clerk should note the matter for April 24, 2020, as ready for the District Judge's consideration if no objection is filed. If objections are filed, any response is due within 14 days after being served with the objections. A party filing an objection must note the matter for the Court's consideration 14 days from the date the objection is filed and served. The matter will then be ready for the Court's consideration on the date the response is due. Objections and responses shall not exceed five pages. The failure to timely object may affect the right to appeal.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2020.

/s/_________

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA

Chief United States Magistrate Judge