Summary
dismissing as moot petition solely seeking relief from immigration detention after petitioner was released from ICE custody
Summary of this case from Ma v. LynchOpinion
Case No. SACV 08-1151-TJH (JWJ).
May 4, 2009
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 15, 2008, petitioner Xiang Yong Chen filed in this Court a "Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241" (hereinafter "Petition"), wherein petitioner contends that he is being unlawfully detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). (Petition, pp. 1-2.) On December 5, 2008, respondents filed "Respondents' Notice of Release of Alien From Immigration Detention" (hereinafter "Notice"), stating on or about December 4, 2008, petitioner was released from detention. (Notice, p. 2.) Respondents argue that petitioner's release from custody renders the current Petition moot and requests that the Petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Id. at 2.) In support of their request for dismissal, respondents' submit an attachment indicating that petitioner was released from custody.
The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the federal Constitution deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70, 104 S. Ct. 373, 78 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1983); NAACP Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the "issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome."Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 71 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1984). The Court does not have power to decide a case that does not affect the rights of litigants in the case before it.Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 108 L. Ed. 2d 400 (1990); Defunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316, 94 S. Ct. 1704, 40 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1996). In other words, a petitioner must have suffered an actual injury that is traceable to the respondent and can be redressed by a favorable decision.Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S. Ct. 978, 983, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1998); NAACP v. Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.
Here, petitioner requested release from physical custody. (Petition, pp. 1-2.) Since petitioner has been released from custody, there is no further relief this Court can provide.Picrin-Person v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775-76 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, this case is moot.
The mootness rule is subject to a "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception. See Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 546, 96 S. Ct. 2791, 49 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976); GTE California Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 39 F.3d 940, 945 (1994). The exception is met when: (1) the "duration of the challenged conduct is too brief ever to be fully litigated prior to its cessation;" and (2) there is a reasonable probability that the petitioner will again be subject to the challenged activity.Mitchell, 75 F.3d at 528; GTE California, 39 F.3d at 945.
While petitioner's confinement is capable of repetition, there is no reason why petitioner cannot again file a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged violation of his liberty interest. Moreover, this Court cannot now determine if future confinement of petitioner will violate his constitutional rights. Any fear that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service may take action against petitioner in the future does not create a case or controversy because such a case is not ripe for adjudication. See Associated Gen. Contractors v. Coalition for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir.).
ORDER
For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's habeas corpus petition is dismissed as moot.