Opinion
1:06-cv-01238-AWI WMW HC.
April 17, 2007
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 14]
At the time he filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner was detained by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("BICE"). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending before the court is Respondent's motion to dismiss.
In the petition filed, Petitioner alleges that his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) is indefinite and violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Petitioner also asserts that his detention is in violation of Respondent's statutory authority.
On February 15, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this petition as moot. Petitioner has not responded to Respondent's motion.
The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the United States 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, 374-75 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the "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, 1183 (1984). The Federal Court is "without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them" North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 406 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-464 (1937). To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant "must have suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70, 104 S.Ct. at 375; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1617, 1924 (1976); NAACP, Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.
In the present case, Respondent provides evidence that Petitioner has been removed and is no longer in detention. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is rendered moot when the petitioner is released from custody, unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that some collateral, ongoing consequence would result without habeas relief. See Spencer v. Kemma, 523 U.S. 1, 14 (1998). Here, no such collateral consequence is alleged. Accordingly, the court finds that this petition has been rendered moot.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:
1) That Respondent's motion to dismiss be GRANTED; 2) That this petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot; 3) That the Clerk of the Court be directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment for Respondent and close this case. These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).IT IS SO ORDERED.