Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 HEBER AUDIAS AVILA ORTEGA, No. 1:26-cv-03167-DAD-DMC-HC

A-203-560-812

12

Petitioner,

13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

14

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY

15 CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et. al.,

16 Respondents.

17

18 Petitioner, an immigration detainee who is proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a

19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Respondent’s

20 motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6, Petitioner filed oppositions, ECF Nos. 9 ,10, and 12, and

21 Respondent filed a reply, ECF No. 13.

22 In the reply, Respondent informed the Court that “on June 22, 2026, Petitioner was

23 successfully removed from the United States to Honduras.” ECF No. 13, pg. 1. Thus, Respondent

24 argues the petition is moot and should be dismissed. See id. The undersigned sought additional

25 documentation to support the claim that Petitioner had been removed, ECF No. 15, and directed

26 Respondent to file an affidavit or sworn declaration in support, ECF No. 17. Respondent filed a

27 declaration by Kenneth Jager, a Deportation Officer employed by the U.S. Department of

28 Homeland Security. See ECF No. 18.

1 Under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury, Officer Jager states that he

2 reviewed all the case information within ICE databases regarding Petitioner. I am

informed and believe that on June 22, 2026, Petitioner boarded an International

3 Flight (Mission No. 26-005921 from Alexandria, LA (AEX) to Honduras

(MHLM). As such, I am informed and believe that on June 22, 2026, Petitioner

4 was removed from the United States to Honduras.

5 Id. at 1-2 (numbering omitted).

6 Based on the evidence presented by Respondent, as confirmed by Officer Jager,

7 || the undersigned finds that Petitioner has been removed from the United States, is no longer in

8 | Respondent’s custody, and therefore, his petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his

9 || detention should be dismissed as moot. Given Respondent’s motion to dismiss addressed the facts

10 || prior to Petitioner’s removal, the undersigned will recommend that the motion to dismiss be

11 || denied as moot.

12 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for writ of habeas corpus,

13 | ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED, and the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6, be DENIED AS MOOT.

14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

15 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The undersigned

16 || finds that a shortened objection period is warranted in this case given the nature of the relief at

17 || issue as well as the fact that the parties have had sufficient time to submit all of their arguments in

18 || written briefs. See United States v. Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam)

19 | (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) sets the maximum objection period and not the minimum); see

20 || also Local Rule 304(b). Thus, within 7 days after being served with these findings and

21 || recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Failure to file objections

22 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

23 || Cir. 1991).

24

25 Dated: August 5, 2026 Co

26 DENNIS M. COTA

07 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28