1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IBRAHIM LABOR KOROMA, Case No. 1:25-cv-0046 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 15 Respondents. JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

16 (Docs. 6, 9) 17 Ibrahim Labor Koroma is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, asserting his 19 prolonged detention following a final removal order violated statutory obligations under 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1231(a)(6) and his constitutional rights. (Doc. 5.) Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, 21 reporting travel documents for removal were obtained for Petitioner. (Doc. 6.) While the motion 22 remained pending, Petitioner was removed from the United States. (Doc. 7.) 23 The assigned magistrate judge found the petition is now moot, and recommended 24 Respondents’ motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. 9.) The Court served the Findings and 25 Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any objections were due within 21 days. 26 (Id. at 2.) Due to Petitioner’s removal from the United States, the U.S. Postal Service returned 27 the document as “Undeliverable, RTS, Not in Custody, Released” on May 12, 2025. Respondents 28 did not file any objections. eI III IE II I I IIE I IGE III III

1 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 3 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 5, 2025 (Doc. 9) are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. 7 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as moot. 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 9 5. A certificate of appealability is not required in the event an appeal is filed.' 10 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _ June 3, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | | A certificate of appealability will not be required because this is an order dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the 27 || detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission,

(9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS,

(5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 28 |

(10th Cir. 1996).