1

2 3 4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 LUIS ANTONIO DURAN SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00608-EPG-HC

11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 v. HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT AND TERMINATE RESPONDENT’S MOTION 13 ACTIVE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, TO DISMISS AS MOOT ADELANTO FIELD OFFICE, et al., 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT Respondents. TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 (ECF No. 10) 16 17 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

. As Petitioner has been removed from the United States, the undersigned 19 recommends the petition be dismissed as moot and the motion to dismiss be terminated. 20 I. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. Removal proceedings were initiated against 23 Petitioner in 2013. (ECF No. 10 at 3; ECF No. 10-1 at 3.1) In June 2013 and November 2013, 24 Petitioner was released from the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 25 (“ICE”) on $3,000 bond. (Id.) In September 2014, Petitioner submitted an application for 26 cancellation of removal. (ECF No. 10 at 4; ECF No. 10-1 at 4.) Eventually, the application for 27 cancellation of removal was set for a merits hearing in August 2025. (Id.) 1 Meanwhile, in August and December 2024, Petitioner was arrested by the Chico Police 2 Department for unlawful manufacturing of a short-barreled rifle/shotgun, committing a felony 3 while released on bail, child abuse/endangerment, resisting a peace officer, and obstructing a 4 public officer. On February 26, 2025, ICE arrested Petitioner after learning of Petitioner’s new 5 criminal history. (ECF No. 10 at 4; ECF No. 10-1 at 4–5.) 6 On May 22, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting 7 that his prolonged detention without a hearing on danger and flight risk violates due process. 8 (ECF No. 1 at 2.) On July 24, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss and response to the 9 petition. (ECF No. 10.) On August 4, 2025, Petitioner filed a letter, (ECF No. 11), but to date, no 10 opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 11 On September 17, 2025, the Court ordered Respondent to inform the Court of Petitioner’s 12 custody status. (ECF No. 13.) That same day, Respondent filed a response, informing the Court 13 that an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed on August 7, 2025, and subsequently 14 Petitioner was removed from the United States. (ECF No. 13 at 2.) On September 24, 2025, 15 Respondent filed documentation establishing that Petitioner was removed from the United States 16 on August 23, 2025. (ECF No. 15-1.) 17 II. 18 DISCUSSION 19 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 20 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,

(1990). “This case-or-controversy 21 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 22 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 23 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 24 v. Kemna,

(1998) (quoting Lewis,

). In the petition, Petitioner 25 challenges his detention in ICE custody. On August 23, 2025, Petitioner was removed from the 26 United States. (ECF No. 15-1.) Given that Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, the Court finds 27 that no case or controversy exists and the petition is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S.,

, 1 | because “there was no extant controversy for the district court to act upon” when petitioner was 2 | subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about the length of his INS detention”). 3 Il. 4 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 6 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT; and 7 2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) be TERMINATED as MOOT. 8 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 9 | the present matter. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 11 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 12 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 13 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 14 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 15 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 16 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed 17 | within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned United States District 18 | Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

(b)(1)(C). 19 | The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 20 | right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 21 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24} Dated: _ September 30, 2025 [Je Fahey — 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28