Sanchez Lopez v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING as Moot Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Gabriel Sanchez Lopez,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS

v.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service,

15

Respondent.

[ECF No. 1.]

16
17
18

On February 24, 2016, Petitioner Gabriel Sanchez Lopez (“Petitioner”) filed a

19

petition for writ of habeas corpus against Respondent United States Citizenship and

20

Immigration Service (“Respondent” or “USCIS”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. No. 1.)

21

In his petition, Petitioner explained that he was being held on an immigration charge and

22

was detained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(b). (Id. at 1, 4.) Petitioner sought an order

23

from the Court releasing him from detention on conditional parole or reasonable bond

24

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 10.)

25

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for leave to amend his petition for writ of

26

habeas corpus on March 16, 2016. (Dkt. No. 2.) Specifically, Petitioner sought to name

27

the proper respondent parties—the United States Department of Homeland Security and

28

CCA Warden John Weaver—in the caption of his petition. (Id.) The Court granted
1
3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS

1

Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend on September 28, 2016 and directed Petitioner to

2

file and serve his amended petition on the proper respondents by October 28, 2016. (Dkt.

3

No. 3.) Petitioner has not filed an amended petition as of the date of entry of this Order.

4

On May 24, 2017, the Court directed Respondent to file and serve a responsive

5

memorandum on or by June 9, 2017. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Court directed Respondent to

6

inform the Court of Petitioner’s detention status in the response and to include any and all

7

documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised by the Petition. (Id.) The

8

Court’s May 24, 2017 Order was returned as undeliverable as to Petitioner. (Dkt. No. 6.)

9

Respondent duly complied with the Court’s Order and filed a response on June 9,

10

2017. (Dkt. No. 7.) Respondent urges the Court to deny the petition on the following

11

grounds. First, Petitioner failed to name the appropriate respondent. Second, Petitioner

12

was released on bond on June 9, 2016, and his case has been moved to Los Angeles, at

13

his request. Third, Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as no

14

violation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(b) occurred. Finally, Petitioner automatically became

15

eligible for a Rodriguez bond hearing after six months, regardless of how quickly his

16

removal proceedings were processed.

17
18

For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas
corpus as moot.

19

LEGAL STANDARD

20

Section 2241 confers jurisdiction on federal courts to entertain petitions for habeas

21

corpus from any person claiming to be held “in custody in violation of the Constitution or

22

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 22241(c)(3). However, the Court lacks

23

jurisdiction to decide cases that are moot because the Court’s constitutional authority

24

extends only to actual cases or controversies. Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464

25

U.S. 67, 70–71 (1983). A petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot where a petitioner’s

26

claim for relief cannot be redressed by a favorable decision of the court issuing a writ of

27

habeas corpus. Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000–01 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting

28

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). Accordingly, when, because of intervening
2
3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS

1

events, a court cannot give any effectual relief in favor of the petitioner, the proceeding

2

shall be dismissed as moot. Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996); McCullough v.

3

Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2013); Kemna, 523 U.S. at 18.
DISCUSSION1

4
5

Petitioner’s claim is moot because the relief requested has been effectuated by his

6

release on bond. When a court is unable to provide “effective relief,” it must dismiss the

7

claim as moot because it lacks jurisdiction. McCullough, 726 F.3d at 1059; Pub. Util.

8

Comm’n of the State of Cal. v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996); Kemna, 523

9

U.S. at 18.
Petitioner requested the Court to order his release “from detention on conditional

10
11

parole or reasonable bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a).” (Dkt. No. 1 at 10.) Subsequent

12

to filing this petition, Petitioner was released on bond on June 9, 2016. (Dkt. No. 7 at 75.)

13

Petitioner has already received the relief requested by way of his bond release. Therefore,

14

Petitioner’s claim is moot, and the Court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition.

15

Cf. Miguel-Miguel v. Kane, No. 2:07-CV-01815 JWS, 2007 WL 4351403, at *1 (D. Ariz.

16

Dec. 11, 2007) (holding that petitioner’s claim was moot because the requested release

17

from custody had already been granted). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the

18

petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot.2

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner’s claim for habeas relief is also without merit. Petitioner contends that he is due release
“from detention on conditional parole or reasonable bond” because his 8 C.F.R § 208.31(b) reasonable
fear determination was not concluded within ten days. (Dkt. No. 1.) Respondent argues that there was no
violation of 8 C.F.R § 208.31(b), because Petitioner’s claim was referred to the asylum office on January
21, 2016, and a final determination was entered on February 2, 2016. (Dkt. No. 7 at 4, 64.) Even if
Petitioner’s reasonable fear determination were delayed, the short delay would have no bearing on the
requested habeas relief. An immigrant detainee is not entitled to a bond hearing until after a six-month
period. Diouf v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 1222, 1233 (9th Cir. 2008). Petitioner was not entitled to his bond
hearing until June 9, 2016. He received his hearing on June 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 7 at 71.)
2
Although release on bond, pending execution of a challenged sentence, satisfies the “in custody”
requirement of § 2241, Hensley v. Mun. Ct., San Jose Milpitas Jud. Dist., Santa Clara Cty., Cal., 411
U.S. 345, 349 (1973), Petitioner’s requested relief was not for unconditional release, but for supervised
release. Thus, Petitioner’s claim is moot, as the relief requested has already been granted.
3
3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS

1

Dated: July 27, 2017

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:16-cv-00500-GPC-AGS