Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 LUIS ANTONIO DURAN SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00608-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

INFORM COURT REGARDING

13 v. PETITIONER’S CURRENT CUSTODY

STATUS

14 ACTIVE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,

ADELANTO FIELD OFFICE, et al.,

15

Respondents.

16

17

18 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

19 U.S.C. § 2241 that challenges his prolonged immigration detention absent a bond hearing. (ECF

20 No. 1.)

21 In Respondents’ motion to dismiss and response to the petition, filed on July 24, 2025,

22 Respondents noted that Petitioner’s next scheduled hearing before an immigration judge was set

23 for August 7, 2025, citing to the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s (“EOIR”)

24 Automated Case Information Tool. (ECF No. 10 at 5 & n.3.1) Based on the EOIR’s Automated

25 Case Information Tool, the immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed on August 7, 2025,

26 and no appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was received. See EOIR Automated Case

27 Information Tool, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (last visited Sept. 16, 2025). A search of the

1 | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) Online Detainee Locator System using

2 | Petitioner’s A-Number produces zero results. See ICE Online Detainee Locator System,

3 | https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited Sept. 16, 2025).

4 The Court has “an independent duty to consider sua sponte whether a case is moot.”

5 | Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d

6 | 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999)). The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases

7 | or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-

8 | controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which

9 | “means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an

10 | actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial

11 | decision.’” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).

12 Based on the EOIR’s Automated Case Information Tool and ICE’s Online Detainee

13 | Locator System, it appears that Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and may have been

14 | removed from the United States, which would moot his pending habeas petition. See Abdala v.

15 | LN.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding habeas petition challenging length of

16 | immigration detention moot because “there was no extant controversy for the district court to act

17 | upon” when petitioner was subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about the

18 | length of his INS detention”).

19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven (7) days of the date of

20 | service of this order, Respondent SHALL inform the Court of Petitioner’s current custody status

21 | and file any supporting documentation.

22

73 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24) Dated: _ September 16, 2025 [sl ey

5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26

27

28