United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT [DOC. 21] ORDER DIRECTING CLERK
OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE
K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Vikram Gill is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro
se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. On December 26, 2018, Petitioner filed
the instant petition challenging his continued detention
pending removal. (Doc. 1.) On May 16, 2019, Respondent filed
a motion to dismiss the petition as moot since Petitioner has
been released from detention. (Doc. 21.) Because Petitioner
has been granted the relief he sought and his claims are now
moot, the Court will DISMISS the petition.
Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district
court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .”
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for
writ of habeas corpus other than those brought under §
2254 at the Court's discretion. See Rule 1 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(2)
provides that the rules are “applicable to proceedings
for . . . habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice
in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the
United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of
civil actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(2).
Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to
dismiss in lieu of an answer if the motion attacks the
pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in
violation of the state's procedural rules. See,
e.g., O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418,
420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to evaluate motion to
dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies);
White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989)
(using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to
dismiss for state procedural default); Hillery v.
Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal.
1982) (same). Thus, a respondent can file a motion to dismiss
after the Court orders a response, and the Court should use
Rule 4 standards to review the motion. See Hillery,
533 F.Supp. at 1194 & n. 12.
case, Respondent's motion to dismiss is based on
mootness. Because Respondent's motion to dismiss is
similar in procedural standing to a motion to dismiss for
failure to exhaust state remedies or for state procedural
default, the Court will review Respondent's motion to
dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.
contends that the instant petition is now moot because
Petitioner has been released from immigration detention.
Respondent submits a copy of an Order of Supervision dated
June 25, 2019, which shows Petitioner was placed on
supervision and permitted to be at large under certain
conditions. (Doc. 21-1 at 1-5.) Petitioner signed the Order
of Supervision on June 25, 2019. (Doc. 21-1 at 1.)
case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal
Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot
cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464
U.S. 67, 70 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of
Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case
becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer
‘live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455
U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal Court is “without
power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of
the litigants before them.” North Carolina v.
Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227,
240-241 (1937)). When a prisoner is released from custody,
any habeas petition challenging continued detention becomes
moot. Fender v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d
550, 555 (9th Cir.1988).
Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought and is no
longer in detention, the petition is now moot.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1) Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition is