Opinion
2:23-CV-1256-JNW-DWC
10-24-2023
KMAN HALLUCKY, Petitioner, v. ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent.
Noting Dated: November 10, 2023
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
David W. Christel Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner initiated this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas action pro se to obtain release from detention. Dkt. 5. Petitioner was subsequently removed from the United States. Dkt. 7-1. Accordingly, the Government moves to dismiss this action as moot. Dkt. 7. Petitioner did not file an opposition to the motion. See Docket.
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 seeks only release from detention, his claims have been fully resolved. See id. at 1065. Accordingly, there is no collateral consequence that could be redressed by the Court, and Petitioner's habeas petition should be dismissed as moot. See id.
The Court thus recommends that the Government's motion to dismiss (Dkt 7) be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on November 10, 2023, as noted in the caption.