Jazrawi v. Wolf

Opinion

2 3 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LUAY LOUIS GHAREEB CASE NO. 20-cv-2338-GPC-KSC 11 JAZRAWI, 12 ORDER: 13 Petitioner, (1) DENYING RESPONDENTS’ 14 v. MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT; 15 AND CHAD WOLF, Secretary of the 16 United States Department of (2) DIRECTING RESPONDENTS 17 Homeland Security; WILLIAM P. TO FILE RETURN ON THE BARR, Attorney General of the MERITS OF THE PETITION 18 United States; San Diego Field 19 Office Director, Office of Detention 20 and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs 21 Enforcement Agency 22 Respondents. 23 24 25 On November 27, 2020 Petitioner Luay Louis Ghareeb Jazrawi 26 (“Petitioner”), then detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the custody of 27 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 28 Enforcement (“ICE”), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 1 U.S.C. §2241 seeking an order directing Respondents to release Petitioner from 2 custody and enjoining Respondents from further unlawful detention of Petitioner 3 under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). ECF No. 1. On January 6, 2021, 4 Respondents filed a return contending that the Petition is moot because Petitioner 5 was released from ICE custody on an order of supervision on December 11, 2020. 6 ECF No. 6. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Respondents’ request 7 to dismiss the case as moot. 8 I. Legal Standard 9 “At any stage of the proceeding a case becomes moot when ‘it no longer 10 present[s] a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution.’” Abdala 11 v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 12 1, 7 (1998)). A case is moot when the court can no longer grant effective relief. 13 Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997), 14 as amended (Sept. 16, 1997). Federal courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over a 15 case if it is moot, but “[t]he burden of demonstrating mootness is a heavy one.” 16 West v. Sec’y of Dep't of Transp., 206 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 17 Northwest Envt’l Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988)). 18 Additionally, when a party voluntarily ceases the allegedly unlawful conduct, that 19 party “bears a formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly 20 wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the 21 Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 22 (2000). 23 II. Discussion 24 Here, Petitioner seeks release from detention as well as an order enjoining 25 Respondents from unlawfully detaining Petitioner, which potentially encompasses 26 a request for prospective relief. ECF No. 1 at 6–8. Respondents filed a one-page 27 Return arguing that the Court should dismiss the Petition because it is moot due to 28 Petitioner’s placement on an order of supervision. ECF No. 6. 1 The Ninth Circuit has noted that in some situations, “a habeas petition does 2 not continue to present a live controversy once the petitioner is released from 3 [immigration] custody.” Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1064. However, more recently, the 4 Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez v. Hayes found that a habeas petitioner’s case was not 5 mooted by his release from immigration custody and placement on an order of 6 supervision because his release could be revoked pursuant to the Government’s 7 discretion and he faced other restrictions on his liberty. Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 8 F.3d 1105, 1117–18 (9th Cir. 2010); cf. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n. 3 9 (2005) (noting that petition under Zadvydas still presented a live case or 10 controversy despite petitioner’s release on parole); Nadeem v. Crawford, 465 F. 11 App’x 659, 660 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Nadeem’s release subject to an order of 12 supervision does not render his habeas petition moot where his release may be 13 revoked at any time in the exercise of discretion, see 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(1)(2)(i), and 14 is contingent on electronic monitoring, scheduled and unscheduled meetings with a 15 detention officer, and a curfew.”). 16 It is not clear from the one-page Return and the attached Order of 17 Supervision filed by Respondents whether Respondents retain discretion to re- 18 detain Petitioner unless it becomes reasonably foreseeable that the Government 19 will be able to remove him or another lawful basis for his detention arises. See 20 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699–700; Clark, 543 U.S. at 376 n.3. The Court therefore 21 cannot conclude at this stage that no effective relief could be granted on the 22 Petition. Cf. Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F. Supp. 3d 984, 990 (C.D. Cal. 2018) 23 (“Because Plaintiffs may be re-detained at any time, they retain a live interest in 24 habeas relief.”); Singh v. Acting Dir. of DHS-ICE, No. 5:19-CV-02417-GW-MAA, 25 2021 WL 674122, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021) (“Petitioner’s conditional release 26 has not rendered the Petition moot.”); Farez-Espinoza v. Napolitano, No. 08 CIV. 27 11060HB, 2009 WL 1118098, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2009) (finding petitioner’s 28 release on revocable bond “fits comfortably within the voluntary cessation 1 ||exception to the mootness doctrine”). Further, Petitioner seeks “injunctive relief 2 || enjoining Respondents from further unlawful detention of Petitioner.”” ECF No. 1 3 8. Regardless of whether Petitioner can show he is entitled to such an 4 || injunction, his request for prospective relief preventing Respondents from 5 || detaining him unlawfully in the future cannot be mooted by his present release on 6 || an order of supervision. 7 Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondents have failed to carry their 8 || burden of showing that the Petition is moot. 9 II. Conclusion 10 The Court therefore DENIES Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Petition 11 moot. 12 In light of the Court’s finding that Respondents have failed to show the 13 || Petition is moot, the Court ORDERS that Respondents file a Supplemental Return 14 || responding to the merits of the Petition. Respondents shall file their Supplemental 15 || Return on or before April 16, 2021. Petitioner may file a Traverse or Reply on or 16 || before May 14, 2021. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: March 15, 2021 (2 apho Crk ) 20 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4