1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS MACIAS ORTEGA, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-00730 JLT HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) CLOSE CASE CALIFORNIA, ) 15 ) (Docs. 1, 16) ) 16 Respondent. ) 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 Petitioner Jesus Macias Ortega, previously detained by U.S. Immigration Customs and 20 Enforcement (ICE) custody, was proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 21 pursuant to

challenging the constitutionality of his detention in ICE custody 22 without a bond hearing. (Doc. 1.) Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 7, 2025. 23 (Doc. 11). Petitioner did not to file an opposition. (See Doc. 7 at 3, ¶ 4 directing a response to a 24 motion to dismiss in twenty-one (21) days). On September 15, 2025, the Court’s Order Re: 25 Consent or Request for Reassignment sent to Petitioner on September 4, 2025 was returned as 26 undeliverable. (See docket). On October 27, 2025, after a sua sponte search for Petitioner in the 27 ICE online detainee locator system returned zero (0) matching records, the assigned magistrate 28 judge directed Respondent to submit supplemental briefing to address whether the action was 1 | moot. (Doc. 13). On November 4, 2025, Respondent filed supplemental briefing representing 2 | that Petitioner had been removed to Mexico, and arguing the action should therefore be dismissed 3 | as moot. (Doc. 16). 4 On November 6, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and 5 || Recommendations that because Petitioner was no longer in ICE custody, the Court lacked 6 | jurisdiction to consider the claims raised in the Petition, and the Petition should be dismissed as 7 | moot. (Doc. 16.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and 8 | informed them that objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Ud.) In 9 | addition, the Court advised the parties “that failure to file objections within the specified time 10 || may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d.at 5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 11 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). No party has 12 | filed objections, and the deadline to do so has expired.! 13 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 14 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 15 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 16 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 6, 2025 (Doc. 16) are 18 ADOPTED in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is to terminate any pending deadlines/motions and CLOSE 21 the case. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 25, 2025 ( Lint pA | | Wy h \ 24. TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 ' The Findings and Recommendations were also returned as “Undeliverable, Detainee Not in Custody” on November 19, 2025. (See docket.)