The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 TAJOHN HASINI JARRED SWABY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01392-EPG-HC
10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
11 v. DISMISS AND DISMISS PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT
12 MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al.,
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
13 Respondents. TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
14 (ECF No. 25)
15
16 Petitioner Tajohn Hasini Jarred Swaby is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of
17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
18 I.
19 BACKGROUND
20 On February 19, 2021, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) initiated
21 removal proceedings against Petitioner and detained him. (ECF No. 7 at 2; ECF No. 25 at 2; ECF
22 No. 25-1 at 2.)1 On March 23, 2021, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner to be removed.
23 (ECF No. 25 at 2; ECF No. 25-1 at 2.) On August 17, 2021, the Board of Immigration Appeals
24 (“BIA”) affirmed the removal order. (Id.) On August 30, 2021, Petitioner moved to reopen his
25 case and sought a concurrent stay of removal. (Id.) Although the BIA initially denied Petitioner’s
26 request for a stay of removal, the BIA granted a stay of removal on February 27, 2023, pending
27 consideration of the motion to reopen. (ECF No. 25 at 2, 3; ECF No. 25-1 at 2.)
1 On July 11, 2023, Petitioner commenced this action by filing an unsigned petition for
2 writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
3 (ECF No. 1.) On July 27, 2023, Petitioner filed a signed petition challenging his prolonged
4 detention in ICE custody. (ECF No. 7.) On September 25, 2023, the matter was transferred to
5 this Court. (ECF Nos. 15, 16.)
6 Meanwhile, on September 7, 2023, the BIA denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen and
7 lifted the stay of removal. (ECF No. 25 at 3; ECF No. 25-1 at 2.) On October 16, 2023, ICE
8 obtained a travel document for Petitioner, and on October 26, 2023, Petitioner was removed from
9 the United States to Jamaica. (ECF No. 25 at 3; ECF No. 25-1 at 2–3.)
10 On October 27, 2023, Respondents filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition as
11 moot in light of Petitioner’s removal. (ECF No. 25.) No opposition or statement of opposition
12 was filed. On November 22, 2023, Respondents filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss.
13 (ECF No. 26.)
14 II.
15 DISCUSSION
16 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”
17 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy
18 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that,
19 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury
20 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer
21 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). In the petition, Petitioner
22 challenges his prolonged detention in ICE custody. (ECF No. 7 at 4–5.) On October 26, 2023,
23 Petitioner was removed to Jamaica. (ECF No. 25 at 3; ECF No. 25-1 at 3.) Given that Petitioner
24 is no longer in ICE custody, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists and the petition is
25 moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding habeas petition
26 challenging length of immigration detention moot because “there was no extant controversy for
27 the district court to act upon” when petitioner was subsequently deported, “thereby curing his
1 Il.
2 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER
3 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondents’
4 | motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) be GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF
5 | No. 7) be DISMISSED as MOOT.
6 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to
7 | the present matter.
8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District
9 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
10 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
11 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file
12 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
13 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the
14 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The
15 | assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling
16 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within
17 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v.
18 | Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th
19 | Cir. 1991)).
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22! Dated: _ January 10, 2024 [sf ey
3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28