Corral v. Sessions et al

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 18 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAVIER F. CORRAL,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
Re: ECF No. 18

JEFFERSON SESSIONS, et al.,
Respondents.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03987-JST

12
13

Petitioner Javier Corral brought this petition for habeas corpus on July 14, 2017. ECF No.

14

1. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) arrested Petitioner, Javier F. Corral, on May 2,

15

2017, detained him, and initiated removal proceedings against him. Id. ¶ 3. At a custody

16

redetermination hearing held on June 8, 2017, an Immigration Judge determined that Corral

17

should be detained without bond. Id. ¶ 3; ECF Nos. 14 at 4, 22 at 5. Corral remained in custody

18

at the time he filed his petition. ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. In his petition, Corral asked the Court to order his

19

“continued detention without bond by Respondents to be unconstitutional and in violation of the

20

Immigration and Nationality Act.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 60.

21

On August 2, 2017, Corral was released from immigration custody, but he was redetained

22

on August 4, 2017. ECF Nos. 14 at 2, 22 at 5. On August 7, 2017, Corral was released again,

23

under an order of supervision. ECF Nos. 14 at 2; 22 at 5. He has not been in DHS custody since

24

that time.

25

Respondent filed this motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on August 31, 2017,

26

arguing that because DHS has released Corral from custody, there is no effective relief the Court

27

can grant, and therefore no remaining live case or controversy. See ECF No. 18 at 8. In his

28

response, Corral asks for an order finding that his past detention “violated both the U.S.

1
2

Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act.” ECF No. 22 at 7.
“A litigant must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the suit throughout all

3

stages of federal judicial proceedings.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007)

4

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A habeas petition only continues to present a live

5

controversy after a petitioner’s release when there is “some remaining ‘collateral consequence’

6

that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Id. at 1064.

7
8
9
10
11

Corral has not asked for relief that can be redressed by success on the petition. The prior
detention order that prompted his petition is no longer of any legal effect. Corral recognizes this,
but hopes that a pronouncement by this Court that his prior detention was illegal might influence
an immigration judge in a future proceeding. But that proceeding has yet to happen, and “it is
purely a matter of speculation whether such [a hearing] will ever occur.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523

United States District Court
Northern District of California

U.S. 1, 16 (1998) (emphasis added). More than speculation is required to create a live
12
controversy. Id.
13

There is no further relief that the Court can provide. Corral’s habeas petition is moot. The

14
motion to dismiss is granted.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: December 19, 2017
17
18

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2