Opinion
For Raul Ernesto Morales, Plaintiff: Bethany Christen Danks, Elisa Martinez Law Offices PLC, Los Angeles, CA; Luis Allen Carrillo, Law Offices of Luis A Carrillo, South Pasadena, CA.
For Eric Holder, United States Attorney General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of USCIS, Defendant: Jacob Max Weintraub, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Assistant U.S. Attorney SA-CV, AUSA - Office of U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana Branch-Civil Div, Santa Ana, CA.
For Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, Davis Nighswonger, Officer-in-Charge of the Theo Lacy Facility (TLF), Defendant: Jacob Max Weintraub, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC.
TERRY J. HATTER, JR., United States District Judge. CARLA M. WOEHRLE, United States Magistrate Judge.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
TERRY J. HATTER, JR., United States District Judge.
This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2241) was filed, with assistance of counsel, on October 5, 2011, by Petitioner Raul Ernesto Morales who was in the custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Theo Lacy Facility in Orange County, California. [Docket no. 1, " Pet." ] For reasons stated below the petition is now dismissed as moot.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner, who first came to the United States from El Salvador in 1988, had been granted temporary protected status by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in 2006. In February of 2010, Petitioner was arrested by local police in Riverside County pursuant to an arrest warrant from El Salvador, USCIS withdrew his temporary protected status and took him into custody. On August 31, 2010, in a removal proceeding, the Immigration Court denied Petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, renewal of temporary protected status, and cancellation of removal; the court then ordered him removed to El Salvador. On February 7, 2011, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision with respect to asylum, withholding of removal, and the Convention Against Torture, but remanded to the Immigration Court to consider whether extreme hardship to Petitioner's United States citizen children would result from his removal and would justify granting cancellation of removal. On remand, the Immigration Court denied cancellation of removal on those grounds on March 23, 2011. On August 12, 2011, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. On August 19, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for review in Ninth Circuit Case No. 11-72440. On September 27, 2011, the Immigration Court denied Petitioner's request for release on bond. [Pet. and Exhibits.]
The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this denial of release on bond on January 19, 2012.
On October 5, 2011, Petitioner filed the present petition, challenging his continued detention and, in particular, his detention without bond. [Pet.] Respondent filed a Response on November 11, 2011. [Docket no. 6.] Petitioner filed a Reply on January 3, 2012. [Docket no. 8.]
On March 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed and denied in part Petitioner's petition for review, but also granted and remanded in part with respect to Petitioner's claim regarding temporary protected status. [Case No. 11-72440, docket no. 27.]
On April 26, 2013, Petitioner filed a request for a bond hearing in this court. [Docket no. 22.] Respondent filed opposition on May 17, 2013. [Docket no. 24.] Petitioner filed a Reply on June 3, 2013. [Docket no. 25.] A hearing was held on July 16, 2013, and the court ordered further briefing and the submission of relevant documents from the immigration courts. [Docket no. 29.] On August 26, 2013, Respondent filed a Status Report and Suggestion of Mootness, stating that, on August 8, 2013, Petitioner had received a bond hearing under the standards established in Rodriguez v. Robbins, CV 07-3239-TJH(RNB) (C.D. Cal.), and that the present petition was, accordingly, moot. [Docket no. 32.] In a minute order filed August 27, 2013, the court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot. [Docket no. 33.] Petitioner filed a Response on September 6, 2013, asserting that the hearing Petitioner received did not comply with the requirements of Rodriguez and substantively challenging the withdrawal of Petitioner's temporary protected status. [Docket no. 34.]
Petitioner filed a new petition for review in the Ninth Circuit on September 18, 2013, challenging a final removal order issued on August 19, 2013, and, again, substantively addressing the issue of temporary protected status. [Case No. 13-73275, docket no. 1.] That case remains pending as of this date.
On March 19, 2014, the court denied without prejudice Petitioner's bond motion. [Docket no. 35.] Petitioner filed a new bond motion on July 28, 2014, primarily addressing the withdrawal of temporary protected status. [Docket no. 36.] Respondent filed opposition on August 7, 2014. [Docket no. 38.] Petitioner filed a reply on August 26, 2014. [Docket no. 43.]
In a minute order filed March 25, 2015, the court denied without prejudice Petitioner's second bond motion, and ordered the parties to file a status report or reports on any further related proceedings in the immigration court and in Petitioner's pending petition for review in Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-73275. [Docket no. 44.] On April 15, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Report stating that the Petitioner died of cancer on April 6, 2015, and indicating that the petition was now moot. [Docket no. 46.]
A motion to dismiss as moot for the same reason was also filed in the pending Ninth Circuit case on April 20, 2014. [No. 13-73275, docket no. 23.]
MOOTNESS
Federal court jurisdiction is limited to adjudication of actual cases and live controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). Federal courts lack jurisdiction over moot questions. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971)(per curiam). When a federal court lacks the power to grant the relief requested, the case is moot. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991).
Because the relief by petitioner was release or release on bond from continued detention in immigration custody, his death renders this habeas petition moot. See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 168 n.2, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986)(habeas case moot when petitioner died before district court decision); see also McAllister v. Attorney General, 444 F.3d 178, 184 (3d Cir. 2006)(petition for review in immigration case mooted by death of petitioner).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action as moot.
Presented by: Dated: April 22, 2015
JUDGMENT
IT IS ADJUDGED that this petition is dismissed as moot.