ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT

STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about August 1, 2016, Petitioner Ahmed Osmann-Muhamud ("Petitioner"), a person in custody ofthe Department ofHomeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement("ICE"), filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition"). (Dkt. 1.) The Petition requests that the Court order Petitioner's immediate release because his continued detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231 as interpreted by Zavydyas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678(2001). (See generally Dkt. 1.) On October 2, 2016, Respondent filed a Return to the Petition (the "Return")arguing that the Petition should be denied. (Dkt. 8.) Petitioner filed a Traverse on November 1, 2016. (Dkt. 9.)

On November 10, 2016, Respondent indicated that Petitioner had been released from ICE custody on November 8, 2016. (Dkt. 10.) Respondent suggested that Petitioner's release rendered his sole claim moot. (Id.) On November 13, 2016, Petitioner filed a notice of non-opposition to Respondent's suggestion of mootness. (Dkt. 11.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner's Claim Is Moot.

Article III of the Constitution "limits the jurisdiction ofthe federal courts to live cases and controversies." Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949,951 (9th Cir. 2010)(citations omitted). An actual case or controversy exists when, throughout the litigation, a petitioner continues to have a "personal stake" in the action that can be "redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7(1998). When, because of events that occur after a case is initiated, a court cannot give any effectual relief in favor ofthe petitioner, the proceeding becomes moot. Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996). Consequently,"habeas petitions [that] raise] claims that were fully resolved by release from custody" are moot. Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065(9th Cir. 2007). Because mootness is a jurisdictional bar, moot petitions should be dismissed. Kittel, 620 F.3d 949, 951-52.

Here, Petitioner has already received the requested relief — he has been released from custody. Thus, his claim is moot because it can no longer be "redressed by a favorable judicial decision." See Kemna, 523 U.S. at 7. Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed unless an exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

B. No Mootness Exception Applies.

There are several exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Relevant herein is voluntary cessation.1 The voluntary cessation exception "has been interpreted to apply generally in cases in which a type ofjudgment with continuing force, such as an injunction, is sought. Armster v. U.S. District Courtfor the Central District of California, 806 F.2d 1347, 1357(9th Cir. 1986). "Such cases do not become moot `merely because the [defendant's) conduct immediately complained of has terminated, if there is a possibility ofa recurrence which would be within the terms of a proper decree.'" Id. (quoting P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro & H. Wechsler, Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 110(2d ed. 1973)). Here, the relief sought was the release from custody. That relief has been attained. No injunction would have been appropriate in any event. Therefore, the voluntary cessation exception does not apply.

As no mootness exception applies, the Petition should be dismissed as moot.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.