(HC) Koroma v. Garland

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IBRAHIM LABOR KOROMA, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-00046-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 14 v. ) GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS 15 ) [Doc. 6] ) U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] et al., ) 17 ) Respondents. ) 18 ) 20 Petitioner is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

22 Petitioner filed the instant petition on January 10, 2025. (Doc. 1.) On February 26, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 6.) On March 10, 2025, Respondent filed a supplement advising the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United States. (Doc. 7.)

25 Petitioner did not file an opposition.

26 The Court finds that the petition is now moot. Accordingly, the Court will recommend the motion to dismiss be GRANTED as the petition is now moot.

28 ///// 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Sierra Leone. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Petitioner was detained at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California, at the time the petition was filed. (Doc. 1 at 3.) On May 21, 2024, an order of removal from the United States became final. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He was taken into ICE custody on May 11, 2023, and was detained continuously by ICE until his recent removal.

6 (Doc. 1 at 3.) Petitioner was unsuccessful in his applications for relief from removal. (Doc. 6-1 at 2.)

7 On March 5, 2025, Petitioner was removed to Sierra Leone. (Doc. 7-1 at 2.)

8 DISCUSSION 9 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. 15 Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). As Petitioner is no longer in custody, his petition claiming indefinite detention is now moot.

18 ORDER 19 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.

20 RECOMMENDATION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED as moot.

23 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty- one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated: May 5, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE