1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 HUY HOANG LE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01272-EPG-HC

11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING 12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING 13 MESA VERDE ICE PROCESSING CENTER CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR, 14 (ECF No. 22) Respondent. 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. 5, 6, 14–16.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court 19 grants Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition for writ of habeas corpus as 20 moot. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Vietnam. (ECF No. 1 at 3; ECF No. 22 at 1.1) In 2013, 24 Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder. After serving sixteen years in California state 25 prison, Petitioner was released from state custody and in January 2024, Petitioner was detained 26 by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 27 (“ICE). (ECF No. 1 at 3; ECF No. 22 at 1.) On February 20, 2024, an immigration judge (“IJ”) 1 ordered Petitioner’s removal. (ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 22-1 at 15–16.) Petitioner did not appeal 2 the IJ’s decision. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) 3 On August 30, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 4 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On October 16, 5 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order 6 transferring the petition to this Court in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Doe v. 7 Garland,

(9th Cir. 2024). (ECF No. 8.) In the petition, Petitioner challenges his 8 prolonged detention, asserting that it violates

(a)(6) as interpreted by the 9 Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001). Petitioner requests immediate release 10 from custody. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) 11 On November 14, 2024, Petitioner was removed from the United States to Vietnam. 12 (ECF No. 22-1 at 3.) On February 5, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as 13 moot. (ECF No. 22.) 14 II. 15 DISCUSSION 16 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 17 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,

(1990). “This case-or-controversy 18 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 19 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 20 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 21 v. Kemna,

(1998) (quoting Lewis,

). 22 In the petition, Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention in ICE custody. (ECF No. 23 1.) On November 14, 2024, Petitioner was removed to Vietnam. (ECF No. 22-1 at 3.) Given that 24 Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists and the 25 petition is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S.,

(9th Cir. 2007) (finding habeas 26 petition challenging length of immigration detention moot because “there was no extant 27 controversy for the district court to act upon” when petitioner was subsequently deported, 1 Ii. 2 ORDER 3 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 4 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED; 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9! Dated: _May 21, 2025 [see hey 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28