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.

Henry v. Holder

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division

April 9, 2014

DUANE ANTHONY HENRY, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, Jr., et al., Respondents.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR MOOTNESS

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, District Judge.

I.

PROCEEDINGS

On April 17, 2012, petitioner, then in the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security, filed a "Writ of Habeas Corpus and Release from Detention."[1] In the Petition, petitioner sought release from custody on the ground that he is a "natural born U.S. citizen, " and thus was improperly being held subject to removal proceedings. (See Petition at 1-2). On March 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge ordered supplemental briefing from petitioner and respondent to address "their respective positions as to whether any of petitioner's grounds for relief set forth in the Petition are moot." On April 3, 2014, respondent filed a Reply to the March 20, 2014, Order, and a Motion to Dismiss ("Reply"). In respondent's Reply, respondent stated that petitioner "was released from immigration custody pursuant to an Order of Supervision" on November 21, 2012; respondent included the Order of Supervision as an attachment. (See Reply at 1-2; Reply, Exhibit). Respondent asserts in the Reply that petitioner "is no longer detained, " and accordingly, that "his habeas petition is moot." (Reply at 2).[2] To date, petitioner has failed to respond to the Order of March 20, 2014, and his time to do so has passed.

II.

MOOTNESS

Petitioner's case should be dismissed as moot, as it appears that he is no longer in federal custody. A case becomes moot when "it no longer present[s] a case or controversy under Article III, ยง 2, of the Constitution." Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). In order to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement, the parties must have a personal stake in the outcome of the suit through "all stages of federal judicial proceedings." United States v. Verdin , 243 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2001). If it appears that the Court is without power to grant the habeas relief requested by a petitioner, the case is moot. See Picrin-Peron v. Rison , 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). As petitioner challenged the lawfulness of his detention, and he has now been released from detention, the Court is without power to grant the relief petitioner requested in the Petition - i.e., that petitioner "be released immediately from [Department of Homeland Security] custody either without bond or on an order of supervision." (Petition at 11).[3] Thus, petitioner's case has been rendered moot. See, e.g., Riley v. I.N.S. , 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002) (finding that a petitioner did not meet any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine, and thus that his release from detention under an order of supervision mooted his challenge to the legality of his extended duration); see also Abdala v. I.N.S. , 488 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2007) ("For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the petitioner's release or deportation, ... there must be some remaining collateral consequence' that may be redressed by success on the petition.") (citation omitted).

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate because petitioner's claims for relief are moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed.


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.