Abdljeber Abubeker Kasim v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detainee under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) after the petitioner received a bond hearing and was granted bond. The court dismissed the case because the petitioner did not object to the outcome of the bond hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the habeas corpus petition“The Court therefore DISMISSES the case.” | agree with court The court's decision to dismiss is consistent with the principle that a habeas petition is moot or unnecessary when the relief sought (release or bond) has already been granted and the petitioner has not challenged the specific terms of that relief. Since the petitioner was granted bond and filed no objection, there is no live controversy regarding the detention status that would warrant further habeas review. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies the statutory basis for detention, notes that the specific relief sought via habeas (bond) was granted at a hearing, and observes the petitioner's lack of objection. The dismissal follows logically from the mootness of the petition once the detention condition was resolved to the petitioner's satisfaction (or at least without challenge). The footnote regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is somewhat tangential to the specific dismissal based on lack of objection to the bond, but it provides context for the general standard of review for such petitions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDLJEBER ABUBEKER KASIM, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3673-CAB-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., [Doc. No. 1] 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Abdljeber Abubeker Kasim filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] After Respondents acknowledged 19 that pursuant to the final judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873- 20 SSS-BFM, Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), this Court ordered a bond 21 hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) and its associated regulations. [Doc. No. 6.] Petitioner 22 subsequently received a bond hearing on January 30, 2026. [Doc. No. 10.] The Judge 23 granted bond in the amount of $3,500, subject to alternatives to detention at the discretion 24 of the Department of Homeland Security. [Id.] Petitioner has filed no objection to the 25 outcome of the bond hearing.1 26 27 1 And even if Petitioner had, the Ninth Circuit has explained that pursuing habeas review of an 28 1 The Court therefore DISMISSES the case. The Clerk of the Court shall close the 2 || case. 3 Itis SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: February 12, 2026 _ Gb 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 8 Petitioner should “exhaust[] administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s decision.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).