Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BERGA HABETAMU SHIBESHI, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04117-RBM-GC 10 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION ON 11 v. SCREENING AS MOOT 12 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, [Doc. 1] 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner Berga Habetamu Shibeshi (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), a Motion to Appoint 17 Counsel (Doc. 2), and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees 18 or Costs (“IFP Motion”) (Doc. 3). 19 Shortly thereafter, and before this Court issued an order in this action, Respondents 20 filed a Notice of Related Case indicating that Petitioner previously filed a petition for writ 21 of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, District of Arizona (“Arizona 22 Petition”) “where he also challenged the legality of his ICE detention.” (Doc. 4 at 1 (citing 23 Shibeshi v. Unknown, No. 2: 26-cv-2511-SHD (D. Ariz.)).) On August 5, 2026, the Court 24 issued an order granting Petitioner’s IFP Motion (see Doc. 3) and sua sponte staying these 25 proceedings pending resolution of the Arizona Petition. (Doc. 6 at 2–3.) 26 Pursuant to this Court’s Order (see id. at 3), on August 26, 2026, Respondents filed 27 a Status Report “confirming that Petitioner’s pending Arizona habeas matter has a 28 disposition.” (Doc. 7 at 1.) Respondents state that “the Court in Arizona ordered a bond 1 hearing” on August 10, 2026, and that “the Immigration Court Granted Petitioner’s release 2 from custody under bond of $1,500” on August 25, 2026. (Id. (citing Shibeshi v. Unknown, 3 No. 2:26-cv-2511-SHD (D.Ariz., July 13, 2026)).) For the reasons set forth below, the 4 Petition is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 5 I. LEGAL STANDARD 6 The Court must first screen habeas corpus petitions to determine whether they are 7 subject to summary dismissal. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 8 States District Courts R. 4 (2019) [hereinafter “Habeas Rules”]; see Lainez Flores v. 9 Warden, Case No.: 26-cv-168-JES-VET, 2026 WL 213516, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) 10 (“A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening 11 requirements that apply to those brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”). Summary dismissal 12 is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached 13 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” Habeas Rule 4, or 14 “where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory.” Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. 15 Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Dismissal does not bar a petitioner from seeking 16 habeas relief in the future. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8 (1963). 17 District courts have the authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner 18 “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal 20 courts to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 21 472, 477 (1990). Courts do not have jurisdiction “where no actual or live controversy 22 exists.” Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 1999). An action 23 becomes moot when “it no longer present[s] a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of 24 the Constitution.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Petitioner requests his release from ICE custody claiming that his immigration 27 detention for over 16 months without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due 28 Process Clause. (Doc. 1 at 4–7.) As Petitioner was granted release from custody on $1,500 1 ||/bond (see Doc. 7 at 1; Doc. 7-1, Ex. 1 at 2—3), Petitioner’s claims are now moot. See 2 || Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065 (holding habeas claims were moot where “the successful 3 || resolution of [Petitioner’s] pending claims could no longer provide the requested relief.”’). 4 Ht. CONCLUSION 5 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court LIFTS the stay in this action and 6 || DISMISSES the Petition (Doc. 1) AS MOOT. In light of this disposition, Petitioner’s 7 || Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court 8 directed to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATE: August 31, 2026 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28