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 Respondent's motion to dismiss the Petitioners' 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 |
|---|---|
Grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Mootness“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion and DISMISSES the Petitions as moot.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record. The Petitioners sought release from detention, and the record confirms they were released. Under Article III, a case becomes moot when the court is without power to grant the relief requested. Since the Petitioners are no longer detained, the specific relief sought (release) can no longer be granted, rendering the case moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the mootness doctrine to the facts presented. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authorities to support the conclusion that the release of the Petitioners from detention renders the habeas petitions moot because the court can no longer grant the specific relief sought (release). The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited case law.
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