Filed: Feb. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 15, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS On September 19, 2017, Zhiyu Yang ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 ("Petition"), in which he sought release from immigration custody. (Petition at 6-8.) 1 On October 23, 2017, Respondents filed an Answer to the Petition. On November 8, 2017, Petitioner filed a Reply. On January 19, 2018, Respondents filed a Supplemental Reply a
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS On September 19, 2017, Zhiyu Yang ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 ("Petition"), in which he sought release from immigration custody. (Petition at 6-8.) 1 On October 23, 2017, Respondents filed an Answer to the Petition. On November 8, 2017, Petitioner filed a Reply. On January 19, 2018, Respondents filed a Supplemental Reply an..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT
GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.
RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS
On September 19, 2017, Zhiyu Yang ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Petition"), in which he sought release from immigration custody. (Petition at 6-8.)1 On October 23, 2017, Respondents filed an Answer to the Petition. On November 8, 2017, Petitioner filed a Reply. On January 19, 2018, Respondents filed a Supplemental Reply and Request for Ruling.
On January 24, 2018, the Court issued an Order requiring Respondents to provide various information regarding the status of Petitioner's removal from the United States.
On February 5, 2018, Respondents filed a "Notice [] that Petitioner Has Been Released From Immigration Custody; Suggestion of Mootness," indicating that Petitioner has been released from immigration custody on an order of supervision.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Petition should be dismissed as moot.
DISCUSSION
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution establishes the scope of federal court jurisdiction, which includes "all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution . . . [and] Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party." The Article III case or controversy requirement prevents federal courts from deciding "questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Where a federal court cannot redress the plaintiff's injury with a favorable decision, the case is considered moot and must be dismissed. See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) ("[T]hroughout the litigation, the plaintiff must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, a habeas petition is moot where the petitioner "seeks relief [that] cannot be redressed by a favorable decision of the court issuing a writ of habeas corpus." Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks, ellipses and citation omitted). "Mootness is jurisdictional." Id. at 999 (citation omitted).
The Petition seeks immediate release from immigration custody pending resolution of removal proceedings. Petitioner has been released from immigration custody. Thus, the relief requested can no longer be effected. There is no "case or controversy" remaining, and the Petition is moot.2 See Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (because petitioner only requested release from custody and had been released, court could provide no further relief and petition was properly dismissed).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition be denied and that this action be dismissed as moot.
