# (HC) Swaby v. Garland > District Court, E.D. California · January 11, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10058325 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** January 11, 2024 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10058325 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10058325. Public record. Not legal advice.