# LOPEZ MARTINEZ v. ODDO

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419693

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 14, 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/10419693

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUAN MIGUEL LOPEZ-MARTINEZ, :
Petitioner :
v. : Case No. 3:24-cv-17-KAP
LEONARD ODDO, WARDEN, :
MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING :
CENTER, et al., :
Respondents :

Memorandum Order
I previously recommended dismissal of the petition as moot at ECF no. 10;
subsequently all parties consented to my jurisdiction.
Petitioner Lopez-Martinez, who was formerly detained in this district by the
Department of Homeland Security at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241. ECF no. 1. Petitioner is
a national of Mexico who sought both asylum and withholding of removal. While
petitioner was at MVPC on November 28, 2022, a data breach occurred resulting in the
names of petitioner and of other DHS/ICE detainees being published on a public website.
Fearing that he would be subject to location and attack by Mexican cartels, petitioner
subsequently spent his time at MVPC in more restrictive conditions of custody. Petitioner
filed a civil suit (that remains pending) seeking money damages as a result of the data
breach in November 2023, and in February 2024 petitioner filed this habeas petition. On
March 31, 2024, petitioner’s application for asylum was denied, petitioner was ordered
removed, and petitioner’s application for withholding of removal was granted. On April
5, 2024, petitioner had a bond hearing and was released on conditions.
The habeas petition is pursuant to the holding of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001), in which the Supreme Court ruled that a foreign national subject to a removal
order cannot be detained indefinitely when the foreign national “provides good reason to
believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future.” 533 U.S. at 689. If there is no significant likelihood of removal a foreign national
can still be detained for a limited set of reasons, including the threat of terrorism or other
threats to national security, the risk of the spread of a highly contagious disease, and the
risk of adverse foreign policy consequences. 8 C.F.R.§ 241.14.
Zadvydas resulted in an administrative process, see 8 C.F.R.§ 241.13 (setting out
the procedural framework), for deciding the question of release or detention of persons
when the execution of a final order of removal is delayed. In Meighan v. Chertoff, 2008
WL 1995374 *2-3 (S.D.Tex. May 6, 2008), the court summarized this review process as
1
follows:
After Zadvydas, the Attorney General issued regulations to implement
administrative review procedures for those aliens detained beyond the removal
period. See Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal, 66
Fed.Reg. 56977 (Nov. 14, 2001) (codified at 8 C.F.R. § 241.13). Under this scheme,
an eligible alien may submit a written request for release to the Headquarters Post–
Order Detention Unit (“HQPDU”) asserting the basis for the alien's belief that there
is no significant likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably
foreseeable future. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(d)(1). The alien must include with the written
request information sufficient to establish his compliance with the obligation to
effect his removal and to cooperate in the process of obtaining necessary travel
documents. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(d)(2). The HQPDU must respond in writing to the
alien, acknowledging receipt of the request for a review of his continued detention.
8 C.F.R. § 241.13(e)(1). Immigration officials may detain the alien until it has made
a determination whether there is a significant likelihood that the alien can be
removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. See id.
The administrative review process contemplates the preparation of a record.
If the HQPDU believes that the alien's request provides grounds for further review,
it may, in an exercise of discretion, forward a copy of the alien's written request for
release to the Department of State for information and assistance in the form of
detailed country conditions information or anything else that may be relevant to
whether a travel document is obtainable from the country at issue. 8 C.F.R. §
241.13(e)(3). In making its decision about whether removal is reasonably
foreseeable, the HQPDU considers a number of factors, including, but not limited
to: (1) the history of the alien's efforts to comply with the order of removal; (2) the
history of previous efforts to remove aliens to the country in question or to third
countries; including the ongoing nature of the efforts to remove the particular alien
and the alien's assistance with those efforts; (3) the reasonably foreseeable results
of those efforts; and (4) the views of the Department of State regarding the prospects
for removal of aliens to the country or countries in question. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(f).
Where there is a continuing effort to remove the alien, there is no presumptive
period of time within which the alien's removal must be accomplished, but the
prospects for the timeliness of removal must be reasonable under the circumstances.
See id.
According to the applicable regulations, the HQPDU shall issue a written
decision based on the administrative record, including any documentation supplied
by the alien, regarding the likelihood of removal and whether there is a significant
likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future under
the circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(g). If there is no significant likelihood that the
alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, HQPDU officials shall
promptly make arrangements for the alien's conditional release. 8 C.F.R.
241.13(g)(1). If there is a significant likelihood that the alien will be removed in the
reasonably foreseeable future, however, the HQPDU shall deny the alien's request
for release. 8 C.F.R. 241.13(g)(2). There is no administrative appeal from the
2
HQPDU's decision to deny a request for release.
Because petitioner had a bond hearing on April 5, 2024, and was released under
conditions, there is no continuing Zadvydas issue. The respondent argues that the petition
is moot. The petitioner contends that it is not moot because of the “capable of repetition
yet evading review” doctrine. He adds that he already spent 498 days in solitary
confinement and does not want to go through that again.
The Court of Appeals held in McLaurin v. Larkins, 199 Fed.Appx. 193 (3d Cir.
2006) that a habeas petitioner, McLaurin, who alleged that a parole board used incorrect
parole standards in denying him parole in 1998, but who was paroled in 2005 with the
petition pending, had no live case or controversy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the
petition be dismissed as moot. Addressing McLaurin's claim that he could be denied
parole in the future based on the same incorrect standards, the Court of Appeals stated:
The “capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and
generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will
again be subjected to the alleged illegality.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.
95, 109, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). McLaurin's assertion of this
hypothetical future injury is too speculative to qualify for the exception to the
mootness doctrine.
199 Fed.Appx. at 195. The Supreme Court, in the case quoted by the Court of Appeals,
explained that a past injury -possibly remedied in a damages action- did not provide
standing for an equitable claim “where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat
that the plaintiff will be wronged again.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111
(1983). In City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, Lyons claimed that he had been subjected to an
illegal chokehold during a police traffic stop, and in his civil suit sought both damages for
his past injury and equitable relief barring future use of chokeholds except when
necessary to counter the threat of deadly force. Although the Supreme Court
acknowledged that it was possible among “countless encounters” between police and
citizens that some person would in the future be subject to an illegal chokehold, 461 U.S.
at 108, and Lyons alleged fifteen chokehold-caused deaths had already occurred after his
encounter during the pendency of his complaint, 461 U.S. at 100, Lyons had no standing
to seeking equitable relief because any claim that Lyons himself would again experience
injury as a result of that practice was “speculative.” 461 U.S. at 109.
It is as certain as sunrise that Zadvydas claims will continue to be made by
removable aliens in detention. It is possible if not probable that some of those claims will
have merit. Precedent is clear, however, that the possibility that petitioner may at some
future point again be in custody and the possibility that he may have a future Zadvydas
claim do not give him standing to litigate that claim now.
3
As I observed at an earlier stage of this matter, for a federal court to have
jurisdiction over a case, an actual controversy must be extant not only at the outset of
litigation, but throughout its course. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S.
43, 67 (1997). See also Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 711 (2011) (“When subsequent
events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably
be expected to recur we have no live controversy to review.” (cleaned up, citations
omitted)). The injury that the petition sought to remedy has been remedied. If the
petitioner is detained again, that will present a new factual and therefore legal context.
The petition is dismissed as moot. The Clerk shall mark this matter closed.

tee
DATE:_May 14, 2024
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice by ECF to counsel and by U.S. Mail to:
Juan Miguel Lopez-Martinez
5161/2 N. New Street
Allentown, PA 18102

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419693. Public record. Not legal advice.