From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cartagena v. Nielsen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Sep 13, 2018
Case No. C18-879-JCC-JPD (W.D. Wash. Sep. 13, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. C18-879-JCC-JPD

09-13-2018

MELVIN ADIEL AMAYA CARTAGENA, Petitioner, v. KIRSTEN NIELSEN, et al., Respondents.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner initiated this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas action on June 12, 2018, to obtain release from detention or a bond hearing, and moved to stay his removal. Dkts. 1 & 2. The motion to stay did not establish that his removal was imminent, and the Court issued its standard scheduling order. See Dkts. 2 & 5. On June 15, 2018, petitioner was removed to El Salvador pursuant to an administratively final order of removal. Dkt. 7-1. The Government now moves to dismiss this action as moot. Dkt. 7.

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 petitioner's habeas petition challenges only the length of his detention at the Northwest Detention Center, 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 petitioner's habeas petition must be dismissed as moot. See id.

The Court recommends that the Government's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 7, be GRANTED and petitioner's motion to stay his removal, Dkt. 2, be DENIED as moot. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit by no later than October 4, 2018. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge's motion calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on October 5, 2018.

This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Thus, a notice of appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until the assigned District Judge acts on this Report and Recommendation.

Dated this 13th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________

JAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Cartagena v. Nielsen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Sep 13, 2018
Case No. C18-879-JCC-JPD (W.D. Wash. Sep. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Cartagena v. Nielsen

Case Details

Full title:MELVIN ADIEL AMAYA CARTAGENA, Petitioner, v. KIRSTEN NIELSEN, et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 13, 2018

Citations

Case No. C18-879-JCC-JPD (W.D. Wash. Sep. 13, 2018)