Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Torres-Moreno v. Ice Field Office Director

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 22, 2013

RAFAEL TORRES-MORENO, Petitioner,
v.
ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES P. DONOHUE, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

Petitioner Rafael Torres-Moreno, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the lawfulness of his mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), and seeking an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Dkt. No. 3. Shortly after the petition was filed, petitioner received a bond hearing before an immigration judge and was granted release under bond of $4000. Dkt. No. 8, Exh. C. Petitioner posted bond and was released from immigration custody on October 1, 2013. Dkt. No. 8, Exh. D. Respondent has filed a response to the habeas petition, suggesting that the petition is now moot and should be dismissed. Dkt. No. 8.

For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that the habeas petition be DISMISSED with prejudice.

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner's habeas petition challenges his immigration detention and seeks an order directing respondent to provide him with a bond hearing. Petitioner, however, was released from immigration detention on October 1, 2013, under bond of $4, 000.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a writ of habeas corpus "shall not extend to a prisoner unless... [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The "in custody" requirement is satisfied at the time the petition is filed. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). To maintain a habeas claim, a petitioner must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the suit throughout "all stages of federal judicial proceedings." United States v. Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2001). At any stage of the proceedings, a petition may become moot "because it no longer present[s] a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution." Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. "For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the petitioner's release or deportation, however, there must be some remaining collateral consequences that may be redressed by success on the petition." Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7).

Because petitioner has been released from immigration custody, there is no remedy the Court can provide, nor are there any collateral consequences. See id. ("[W]here the grounds for habeas relief will not redress collateral consequences, a habeas petition does not continue to present a live controversy once the petitioner is released from custody."). Thus, petitioner's request for a bond hearing should be dismissed as moot. See id.; see also Cooney v. Edwards, 971 F.2d 345, 346 (9th Cir. 1992)(holding that the District Court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims that had become either moot or unripe).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.