Carlos Enrique Cabrera-Cruz v. Todd Blanche, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a petitioner who had been removed from the United States three days prior to filing. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied the related motions as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Petitioner was not in custody when his Petition was filed. The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition for lack of jurisdiction” | agree with court The order correctly applies the well-established legal principle that federal habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 requires the petitioner to be 'in custody' at the time the petition is filed. Because the record indicates the petitioner was removed from the United States on June 26, 2026, and filed the petition on June 29, 2026, he was not in custody. The dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is legally sound. |
Denial of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as Moot“DENIES AS MOOT the motion for temporary restraining order” | agree with court Because the underlying petition for habeas relief was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the ancillary motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo or prevent removal is moot. The petitioner is no longer in the United States, so the relief sought is no longer available or necessary. |
Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel as Moot“DENIES AS MOOT ... the motion to appoint counsel” | agree with court The motion to appoint counsel is ancillary to the habeas petition. Since the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, there is no pending case in which counsel would be appointed. Therefore, the motion is moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the jurisdictional requirement for habeas corpus petitions and applies it to the specific facts that the petitioner was removed prior to filing. The citations to Maleng v. Cook and Nava v. Ceja are appropriate and directly support the conclusion that the court lacks jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise and legally accurate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS ENRIQUE CABRERA-CRUZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-3792-CAB-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR A 14 TODD BLANCHE, et al., WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 15 Respondents. (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 16 FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 17 ORDER, [Doc. No. 3]; and 18 (3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 19 TO APPOINT COUNSEL, [Doc. No. 2]. 20 21 On June 29, 2026, Petitioner Carlos Enrique Cabrera-Cruz filed a petition for a writ 22 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], and two related 23 motions, [Doc. Nos. 2, 3]. Petitioner has been subject to a final order of removal since 24 1999. [Petition at 2.] Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner’s order of removal 25 was executed and he was removed from the United States on June 26, 2026. [Doc. No. 4.] 26 “The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to 27 entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are ‘in custody in violation of 28 1 || the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 2 ||490 (1989) (emphasis added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)); see also Nava v. Ceja, 546 3 || F. App’x 629, 631 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A petitioner for habeas corpus must be ‘in custody’ in 4 ||order for the court to have jurisdiction over his petition. Aliens removed before filing a 5 || petition do not ordinarily satisfy that requirement.”’). 6 Petitioner was not in custody when his Petition was filed. The Court therefore 7 ||DISMISSES the Petition for lack of jurisdiction and DENIES AS MOOT the motion for 8 temporary restraining order and the motion to appoint counsel. [Doc. Nos. 2, 3.] 9 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 10 It is SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: July 2, 2026 (GE— 12 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28