Gritsenko v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 1,7 (1998) 2 || (noting that a petition can become moot if it no longer
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered the government's motion to dismiss habeas corpus petitions for mootness after the petitioners were released from immigration detention. The court granted the motion and dismissed the petitions as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Mootness“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion and DISMISSES the Petitions as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the doctrine of mootness. The petitioners sought release from detention, and the government attested they were released on June 5, 2025. Because the relief sought (release) had already been granted by the government, the court lacked the power to grant the requested relief, rendering the case moot under Article III. The cited authorities support this conclusion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It identifies the specific relief sought (release from detention), notes the factual change (release occurred), and applies the correct legal standard for mootness in the context of habeas corpus petitions. The citations to Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent are appropriate and directly support the conclusion that the court lacks power to grant the requested relief once the petitioner is no longer detained.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEKSEI GRITSENKO, Case No.: 25cv899-LL-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITIONS FOR 14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND MOOTNESS SECURITY, 15 Respondent. [ECF No. 10] 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Aleksei and Diana Gritsenko’s 20 (collectively “Petitioners”) Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2241 for mootness (“Motion”). ECF No. 10. Respondent attests that Petitioners were 22 released from detention on June 5, 2025. ECF No. 10-1, Declaration of Fernando 23 Valenzuela, ¶¶ 8–9; see also ECF No. 10-2. 24 The Court finds that Petitioners’ actions are now moot. When Petitioners filed their 25 habeas petitions, they sought to be released from immigration detention. Now that 26 Petitioners have been released from custody, the Court is without power to grant the relief 27 requested and the Petitions are therefore moot. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 28 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted) (“If it appears that we are without power to grant the 1 || relief requested, then this case is moot.”); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,7 (1998) 2 || (noting that a petition can become moot if it no longer presents a case or controversy under 3 || Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution by reason of lacking an actual injury traceable to 4 ||a defendant that is capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial decision). 5 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion and DISMISSES the Petitions as 6 ||moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close these consolidated cases. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: June 27, 2025 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28