The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 OSCAR RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-00132-JLT-SAB-HC
12 Petitioners, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
13 v. HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT
14 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al.,
15 Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
18 U.S.C. § 2241.
19 I.
20 BACKGROUND
21 Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala. (ECF No. 1 at 2.1) On June 9, 2016, an immigration
22 judge ordered Petitioner removed to Guatemala. (ECF No. 13-2 at 2.) On October 31, 2016, the
23 Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, and Petitioner was removed to
24 Guatemala on November 23, 2016. (ECF No. 13-3 at 3.)
25 Petitioner subsequently reentered the United States. Immigration authorities detained
26 Petitioner in 2019 and reinstated his prior order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
27 (ECF No. 13-3 at 3–4; ECF No. 13-4.) Petitioner was placed in withholding-only proceedings
1 after he claimed fear of being returned to Guatemala. (ECF No. 13-3 at 4.) Before those
2 withholding-only proceedings concluded and during the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration
3 authorities released Petitioner due to his medical history of asthma and obstructive pulmonary
4 impairment on April 1, 2020. (ECF No. 13-3 at 4.) On September 15, 2025, Petitioner went to
5 report as ordered and was re-detained. (ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 13-3 at 4.) A final merits
6 hearing on his withholding-only proceedings was scheduled for April 1, 2026.2 (ECF No. 13-5.)
7 Meanwhile, on January 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
8 asserting that: (1) Petitioner’s continued detention in immigration custody violates due process
9 because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future; (2)
10 ICE’s third country removal procedures violates the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and
11 Nationality Act (“INA”), the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and implementing
12 regulations; (3) punitive third-country banishments violate the Fifth and Eighth Amendments;
13 and (4) Petitioner’s continued detention violates due process, 8 C.F.R. § 241.123, and the
14 Administrative Procedures Act. (ECF No. 1 at 13–18.)
15 On February 11, 2026, Respondents filed an answer. (ECF No. 13.) Per the Court’s
16 orders, (ECF Nos. 17, 19), Respondents notified the Court that “immigration authorities released
17 Rodriguez Lopez into the United States on an order of supervision in late February.” (ECF No.
18 20 at 1.)
19 II.
20 DISCUSSION
21 Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to
22 “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
23 (1990). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial
24 proceedings,” which “means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or
25 be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a
26
27 2 A review of the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (“EOIR”) Automated Case Information System shows
that there are no future hearings scheduled and the case is still pending. See EOIR, Automated Case Information
1 favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S.
2 at 477).
3 In the petition, Petitioner requested release from custody and challenged Respondents’
4 third country removal policy. (ECF No. 1 at 19.) On February 27, 2026, Petitioner was released
5 from custody on an order of supervision. (ECF Nos. 20-1, 20-2.) As Petitioner is no longer in
6 federal immigration detention, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists with respect to
7 Grounds One and Four of the petition and those claims should be dismissed. See Abdala v.
8 I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding habeas petition challenging length of
9 immigration detention was moot because “there was no extant controversy for the district court
10 to act upon” when petitioner was subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about
11 the length of his INS detention”).
12 With respect to Petitioner’s challenge to Respondents’ third country removal policy in
13 Grounds Two and Three, the reinstated removal order orders Petitioner removed to his home
14 country of Guatemala. As there is nothing before the Court suggesting that Respondents intend
15 to remove Petitioner to a third country, the Court recommends finding that Petitioner is not
16 entitled to habeas relief on Grounds Two and Three. See Gevorgyan v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-
17 03408-SRM-ADS, 2026 WL 20902, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 2026) (finding “Petitioner's third-country
18 removal claim is not constitutionally ripe” because officer “attests that ICE intends to remove
19 him to Armenia and that no request for removal to a third country has been made,” and “there is
20 no evidence ... that suggests ICE intends to remove him to a country other than Armenia”);
21 Uzzhina v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01594-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3458787, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec.
22 2, 2025) (“The court will deny without prejudice this request for temporary injunctive relief
23 because the evidence before the court at this time is that respondents intend to remove petitioner
24 to either Russia or Kazakhstan, not a third country.”).
25 III.
26 RECOMMENDATION
27 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of
] This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District
2 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
3 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
4 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file
5 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any
6 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
7 | Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days
8 | after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate
9 | Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file
10 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
11 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d
12 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
13
14
15 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le
16 | Dated: _ May 20, 2026 :
STANLEY A. BOONE
17 United States Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28