1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 DAVID ALONZO LOPEZ-ALVARENGA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00775-EPG-HC

10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING 11 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING 12 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD 13 OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION (ECF No. 25) AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to

. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a 18 United States magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 15, 17, 18.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court 19 dismisses the petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot. 20 I. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador. (ECF No. 21 at 9.1) Petitioner has been 23 convicted of various offenses and most recently was sentenced on September 30, 2021 to an 24 imprisonment term of one year and four months for being a felon in possession of a firearm and 25 grand theft of an automobile. (ECF No. 21 at 10.) 26 Upon Petitioner’s release from prison on June 9, 2022, the Department of Homeland 27 Security (“DHS”) detained Petitioner pursuant to

(c). On June 28, 2022, 1 Petitioner appeared before an immigration judge (“IJ”) for a removal hearing. On October 20, 2 2022, an IJ issued an order of removal against Petitioner and denied Petitioner’s requests for 3 relief and protection. On May 17, 2023, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed 4 Petitioner’s appeal and issued a final administrative order of removal. (ECF No. 21 at 10.) On 5 May 30, 2023, Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and Petitioner was granted a temporary 6 stay of removal. (Id. at 11.) 7 Meanwhile, on July 18, 2023, Petitioner file the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus 8 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On July 9 3, 2024, the case was transferred to this Court. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) In the petition, Petitioner alleges 10 that he has been detained since June 9, 2022, and has not been afforded a bond hearing. 11 Petitioner asserts that his prolonged detention violates his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights 12 and requests immediate release, or in the alternative, release within thirty days unless 13 Respondents schedule a bond hearing before an IJ. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 12–13.) On September 6, 14 2024, Respondents filed an answer. (ECF No. 21.) To date, no traverse has been filed. 15 On November 21, 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, and 16 Petitioner’s motions for stay of removal were denied. Mem. Disposition & Order, Lopez- 17 Alvarenga, No. 23-1045 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2024), ECF Nos. 46, 47.2 On December 12, 2024, the 18 Court ordered supplemental briefing in light of the Ninth Circuit’s denial of the petition for 19 review. (ECF No. 23.) On January 10, 2025, Respondents filed a supplemental brief addressing 20 the legal issues outlined by the Court. (ECF No. 24.) On February 13, 2025, Respondents filed 21 another supplement, informing the Court that Petitioner was removed from the United States to 22 El Salvador on February 5, 2025. (ECF No. 25 at 1; ECF No. 25-2 at 2.) Respondents move to 23 dismiss the petition “on the basis that Petitioner’s release from detention and removal from the 24 United States has rendered his Petition moot.” (ECF No. 25 at 1.) 25 2 The Court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial 26 system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). See also United States v. Raygoza-Garcia,

(9th Cir. 2018) (“A court may 27 take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, which may include court records available through PACER.”); Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,

, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 4 | Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,

(1990). “This case-or-controversy 5 | requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 6 | throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 7 | traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 8 | v. Kemna,

(1998) (quoting Lewis,

). 9 In the petition, Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention in U.S. Immigration and 10 | Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. (ECF No. 1.) On February 5, 2025, Petitioner was 11 | removed to El Salvador. (ECF No. 25 at 1; ECF No. 25-2 at 2.) Given that Petitioner is no longer 12 | in ICE custody, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists and the petition is moot. See 13 | Abdala v. LN.S.,

(9th Cir. 2007) (finding habeas petition challenging length 14 | of immigration detention moot because “there was no extant controversy for the district court to 15 | act upon” when petitioner was subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about the 16 | length of his INS detention”). 17 Il. 18 ORDER 19 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 20 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED; 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and 22 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25| Dated: _May 9, 2025 [Je hey — %6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28