1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMMAD SEDIQ ISHAQZAI, Case No. 5:19-CV-01627-PA-AFM 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. AS MOOT 14 KEVIN McALEENAN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On August 27, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to

. At the time he filed the petition, Petitioner was subject 19 to a final order of removal and was in custody of the United States Immigration and 20 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The petition challenges Petitioner’s continued 21 detention by ICE pending his removal. Specifically, the petition alleges that 22 Petitioner has been detained without removal for longer than six months and is 23 entitled to be released under Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001). (ECF No. 2 at 24 3, 6-7.) 25 In their Answer to the Petition, on September 26, 2019, Respondents stated 26 that travel documents have been issued by the Government of Afghanistan and ICE 27 is in the process of scheduling a return flight with a final destination of Afghanistan. 28 (ECF No. 7.) 1 On February 12, 2020, Respondents filed a notice that Petitioner was removed 2 from the United States in January 2020, including a declaration from the Deportation 3 Officer verifying that Petitioner was removed in January 2020. (ECF No. 17.) As a 4 result, Respondents urge that the petition should be denied and the case dismissed as 5 moot. (Id.) On February 27, 2020, Petitioner filed a response agreeing that Petitioner 6 has been removed from the United States and that the petition is moot and should be 7 dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 19.) 8 DISCUSSION 9 Federal court jurisdiction is limited to adjudication of actual cases and live 10 controversies. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,

(1990); North 11 Carolina v. Rice,

(1971) (per curiam). A petition for a writ of 12 habeas corpus becomes moot when a prisoner who requests release from custody is 13 released before the court has addressed the merits of the petition. See Lane v.

U.S. 624, 631 (1982); Spencer v. Kemna,

(1998). The 15 petition requests an order releasing Petitioner from ICE custody. (ECF No. 2 at 7.) 16 Petitioner, however, already has been released from ICE custody. As a result, there 17 is no additional relief that this Court could grant him. The only issue raised in the 18 habeas petition here, and the only one properly before this Court, is whether 19 Petitioner’s continued detention violates the Constitution. See Zadvydas,

689 (in light of the Constitution’s demands, an alien’s post-removal-period detention 21 is limited to “a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from 22 the United States”). As a result of Petitioner’s removal, the question of the 23 constitutional validity of his continued detention no longer presents a live 24 controversy. See Martinez-Reyes v. Burns,

, *2 (C.D. Cal.

, 2011) (“since petitioner’s removal from the United States has released him 26 from ICE custody, he has received the only relief this Court might provide him, and 27 the pending Petition is moot”), report and recommendation adopted,

1375163 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011). 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied without prejudice, and the case 2 || 1s dismissed as moot. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || DATED: February 29, 2020

8 UNITED SWATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28