The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ REYES, Case No. 23-cv-04079-JCS
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
9 v. DISMISS
10 MOISES BECERRA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 9
Defendants.
11
12 INTRODUCTION
13 Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking relief
14 from his continued detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
15 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He claims that his continued detention without a
16 bond hearing violates his right to due process.1 (ECF No. 1.) After conducting a preliminary
17 review of the petition, the Court found it, when liberally construed, stated a cognizable claim for
18 relief, and ordered Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. (ECF No.
19 5.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot in light of Petitioner’s removal.
20 (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner did not file an opposition. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to
21 dismiss is GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED as moot.
22 BACKGROUND
23 Petitioner, a Mexican national, was convicted in 2015 in the Los Angeles Superior Court
24 of making criminal threats (Cal. Penal Code § 422) and pleaded no contest to a charge of violating
25 a protective order (id. § 273.6(a)). (ECF No. 1 at 2; No. 1-1 at 43, 62). After he was released from
26 state custody, DHS took him into federal custody and charged him “under § 234(a)(2) of INS and
27
1 as defined in § 101(a)(43)(F) of the act.” (Id. at 2.) He was transferred to Golden Gate Annex
2 (“GGA”) in Macfarland, California, an ICE facility. (Id.) Petitioner conceded to removal; his
3 application for asylum, “Withholding and CAT” (Convention Against Torture Act) was denied;
4 and on April 26, 2023, he was ordered to be removed to Mexico by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
5 (Id.; ECF No. 9-2 at 6-15.) Petitioner appealed the order of removal to the Board of Immigration
6 Appeals (BIA). (ECF No. 9-4 at 1-6.) On August 10, 2023, the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal
7 and entered a final order of removal. (ECF No. 9-5.)
8 The next day, August 11, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant petition, and one week later, he
9 filed a petition for review of the removal order and motion for a stay of removal with the Ninth
10 Circuit. (ECF Nos. 1, 9-6.) The motion for a stay led to an automatic temporary stay of removal
11 by the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 9-6 at 3.) Petitioner’s motion for a stay was denied on November
12 17, 2023. (Id.) On November 27, 2023, Petitioner was released by DHS from GSA, and the next
13 day Petitioner was removed to Mexico. (ECF No. 9-7, 9-8.)
14 DISCUSSION
15 Petitioner alleges his continued detention without a bond hearing violates due process, and
16 on that basis he seeks a bond hearing so he has the opportunity for release from custody. As
17 Petitioner is no longer detained, however, a bond hearing would serve no purpose. In Abadla v.
18 I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit ruled that a noncitizen’s habeas
19 petition premised on prolonged civil immigration detention was moot because the petitioner was
20 released from detention and removed while the case was pending. Petitioner is in the same
21 position as the petitioner in Abadla. Consequently, under Abadla, this petition is moot and must
22 be dismissed.
23 CONCLUSION
24 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the instant
25 petition is DISMISSED as moot.
26
27
1 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Dated: March 14, 2024
4
¢
JGSEPH C. SPERO
6 United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
©
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28