1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMER MOHAMED, Case No. CV 20-00483-PD 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. 14 HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Petitioner Omer Mohamed, an inmate at the Federal Correctional 19 Institution in Victorville, California, filed a “Motion to Dismiss Immigration 20 Detainer,” which the Court construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 under

. [Dkt. Nos. 1, 3.] Petitioner alleges that on August 1, 22 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) lodged a detainer 23 against him stating “that probable cause exists that he is a removable alien.” 24 [Id. at 1.] He argues that he is not removable because he entered the United 25 States as a minor with his parents, and his parents both became naturalized 26 citizens before his eighteenth birthday. He asks the Court to dismiss the 27 immigration detainer. [Id at 2, 3.] 28 1 The Court ordered the government to respond. On June 11, 2020, the 2 government filed a notice stating that the detainer has been withdrawn. 3 Specifically, the government stated that on June 9, 2020, DHS cancelled the 4 immigration detainer, which was originally issued in August 2018, and there 5 are no outstanding immigration detainers related to Petitioner. [See Dkt. No. 6 11-1, Declaration of Brian Peterson at ¶ 10.] The government contends that 7 because dismissal of the detainer is the only relief sought by Petitioner, the 8 case is moot and should be dismissed. 9 On July 1, 2020, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to file a 10 response to the government’s notice and argument by July 20, 2020. [Dkt. No. 11 13.] The Order advised Petitioner that if he elected not to file a response, the 12 case would be dismissed. To date, Petitioner has not filed any response to 13 Respondent’s notice and argument. For the following reasons, the Petition is 14 dismissed as moot. 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 A. Dismissal is Warranted Because the Petition is Moot Article III of the Constitution “limits the jurisdiction of the federal 17 courts to live cases and controversies.” Kittel v. Thomas,

, 951 18 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Deakins v. Monaghan,

(1988) (“Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to the 20 adjudication of actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.”). An actual 21 case or controversy exists when, throughout the litigation, a petitioner 22 continues to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit and suffers 23 some actual injury that is likely to be “redressed by a favorable judicial 24 decision.” Spencer v. Kemna,

(1998) (citations omitted). When, 25 because of events that occur after a case is initiated, a court cannot give any 26 effectual relief in favor of the petitioner, the proceeding becomes moot. 27 Calderon v. Moore,

(1996) (citation omitted); see also 28 1 Murphy v. Hunt,

(1982) (“In general, a case becomes moot 2 when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally 3 cognizable interest in the outcome.”) (citations and internal quotation marks 4 omitted). Since mootness is a jurisdictional bar, moot petitions should be 5 dismissed. Kittel, 620 F.3d at 951–52. 6 Here, Petitioner requested dismissal of the immigration detainer. 7 Because the immigration detainer has been withdrawn and Petitioner is not 8 in ICE custody, there is no further relief that this Court can provide. See 9 Powell v. United States Marshal Office,

at *4 (E.D. Cal. 10 March 30, 2009) (holding claim challenging immigration detainer was 11 rendered moot once the petitioner was no longer being detained pursuant to 12 that detainer). 13 There is an exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are 14 “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Spencer,

. However, 15 this exception is limited to extraordinary cases where (1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow for full litigation before it ends, and 16 (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the petitioner will be subjected to 17 the challenged action again.

18 Here, Petitioner has not alleged or shown that there is a reasonable 19 expectation he will be subjected to an immigration detainer again. Moreover, 20 if he was subjected to an immigration detainer, there is no reason why he 21 could not file a new habeas corpus petition concerning any future alleged 22 violation of his liberty interest. As such, the Petition should be dismissed as 23 moot. 24

25

26

27

28 1 | Il. ORDER 2 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the government’s request to 3 || dismiss the Petition is granted and that Judgment be entered dismissing the 4 || Petition as moot. > DATED: September 04, 2020 6 7 Palaces Mana hoe_ 8 PATRICIA DONAHUE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28