FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF Nos. 1 & 13)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

I.

BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner stated that he was detained at the Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, California. (Id. at 2). On October 6, 2015, the Sacramento Division transferred the action to this Court. (ECF No. 4).

In the petition, Petitioner claims that he is being detained by Immigration Customs Enforcement ("ICE") past the six-month presumptively reasonable period for removal and that his removal is not significantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. On November 4, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a response to the petition. (ECF No. 11). On November 5, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for mootness as the warrant for Petitioner's removal was executed on October 15, 2015. (ECF No. 13).

II.

DISCUSSION

Here, Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Based on the language of § 2241 and the common-law history of the writ, the Supreme Court has recognized "that the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Petitioner was removed from the United States on October 15, 2015. (ECF No. 13-1). "Because he has been released, there is no further relief [the Court] can provide" and the petition must be dismissed. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991).

III.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) be GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the case.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.