Ortiz-Ledezma v. Holder

Full title: SERGIO ORTIZ-LEDEZMA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General, et…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 3, 2011

1:10-cv-01908 MJS HC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2011)

Opinion

1:10-cv-01908 MJS HC.

June 3, 2011

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT [Doc. 15]

MICHAEL SENG, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 13, 2010. Petitioner asserts his detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") violates United States statutes and his constitutional right to due process of law. Both parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

I. BACKGROUND

II. ANALYSIS

Zadvydas v. Davis 533 U.S. 678 2, of the United States ConstitutionLewis v. Continental Bank Corp.494 U.S. 472477-78 110 S. Ct. 12491253-54108 L. Ed. 2d 400See Picrin-Peron v. Rison930 F.2d 773775

The relief that Petitioner requested in his habeas petition, i.e., his release from continued and potentially indefinite detention, can no longer be granted by the Court. Therefore, this habeas action, alleging his continued detention violates federal law and his constitutional rights, is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that "there must be some remaining `collateral consequence' that may be redressed by success on the petition" in order to continue to seek habeas corpus relief); Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 775.

The United States Supreme Court has held that speculation and conjecture of future improper conduct is insufficient to defeat mootness, and that the "the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical." City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02, 108-09, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1664-65, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983) (internal quotations omitted). As Petitioner is no longer detained, his habeas petition alleging that his detention was unauthorized and unconstitutional is now moot. See Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957, 959 (9th Cir. 2009);Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1064-65.

III. CONCLUSION

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot because the petition challenges only the legitimacy of Petitioner's continued detention. Petitioner is no longer detained as he has been removed from the United States. There is no existing case or controversy over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly the case is moot and must be dismissed.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.