The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 EDUARDO CEJA AYALA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00463-EPG-HC
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING
13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING
14 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE
DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD
15 OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION (ECF No. 16)
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
16
Respondents.
17
18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of
19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a
20 United States magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 6, 14, 15.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court
21 grants Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition for writ of habeas corpus as
22 moot.
23 I.
24 BACKGROUND
25 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.1) On April 18, 2024, the
26 United States Border Patrol encountered Petitioner entering or attempting to enter the United
27 States. On May 2, 2024, Petitioner was transferred to Golden State Annex in McFarland,
1 California. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) On June 4, 2024, a notice to appear was issued, charging
2 Petitioner with removability under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality
3 Act (“INA”) as an alien without valid entry documents. (Id. at 9.) On October 31, 2024, an
4 immigration judge denied Petitioner’s applications for relief from removal and ordered Petitioner
5 removed to Mexico. (Id. at 13–16.) On November 13, 2024, Petitioner filed an appeal with the
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Id. at 2.)
7 On January 2, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
8 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On April 18,
9 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order
10 transferring the petition to this Court. (ECF No. 7.) In the petition, Petitioner challenges his
11 prolonged detention and requests a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.)
12 On March 7, 2025, the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, and on March 13, 2025,
13 Petitioner was removed from the United States to Mexico. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2, 19–20.) On June
14 23, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (ECF No. 16.) To date, no
15 opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.
16 II.
17 DISCUSSION
18 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”
19 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy
20 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that,
21 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury
22 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer
23 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).
24 In the petition, Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention in immigration custody.
25 (ECF No. 1.) On March 13, 2025, Petitioner was removed from the United States to Mexico.
26 (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) Given that Petitioner is no longer in immigration custody, the Court finds
27 that no case or controversy exists and the petition is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061,
1 | because “there was no extant controversy for the district court to act upon” when petitioner was
2 | subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about the length of his INS detention”).
3 Il.
4 ORDER
5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:
6 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED;
7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and
8 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.
9
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11] Dated: _ September 26, 2025 [sf ey —
2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28