Hernandez-Jimenez v. Archambeault
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Campbell, 204 F.3d 861
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detainee challenging the conditions of his confinement. The court summarily dismissed the petition without prejudice and without leave to amend, finding it moot and lacking jurisdiction because the petitioner was no longer in custody at the facility in question.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.“Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice and without leave to amend.” | agree with court The dismissal is supported by the record recited in the order. The petitioner was challenging conditions of confinement at a specific facility. The court noted that mail sent to the petitioner at that facility was returned as 'DETAINEE DEPARTED.' Under established law, a habeas petition challenging conditions of confinement becomes moot when the petitioner is no longer detained at the facility in question, as the court can no longer provide a remedy. Additionally, the 'in custody' requirement for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas relief is jurisdictional, and the petitioner's departure from the facility likely negates this requirement. Therefore, the dismissal is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standards for habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, specifically the jurisdictional 'in custody' requirement and the Article III mootness doctrine. It applies these standards to the specific facts recited (the petitioner's departure from the facility as evidenced by returned mail). The conclusion that the petition is moot and the court lacks jurisdiction follows logically from the cited authorities and the facts. The dismissal without leave to amend is also supported by the cited authority (Jarvis v. Nelson) given the jurisdictional and mootness defects.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFREDO HERNANDEZ-JIMENEZ, Case No. 21cv936-MMA-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Alfredo Hernandez-Jimenez, a detainee previously in the custody of the 18 Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 19 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 2241. See Doc. No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court summarily 21 DISMISSES the petition. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court is 24 required to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 “If it 25 plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to 26 27 1 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 28 1 relief,” the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 2 see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Challenges to the “manner, 3 location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in 4 the custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per 5 curiam). 6 The petition is subject to summary dismissal on several grounds. At the time he 7 initiated this action, Petitioner was housed at Imperial Regional Detention Facility, and 8 he sought a writ based on the allegedly unconstitutional conditions of his confinement. 9 See id. The Court issued an order granting Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 10 See Doc. No. 2. The Clerk sent Petitioner a copy of the order via U.S. Mail at his address 11 of record at Imperial Regional Detention Facility; the U.S. Postal Service returned the 12 mail as undeliverable and marked “DETAINEE DEPARTED.” See Doc. No. 5. “[A] 13 petitioner’s release from detention under an order of supervision ‘moots his challenge to 14 the legality of his extended detention.’” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 15 2007) (quoting Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002)). 16 Moreover, the writ of habeas corpus extends only to a person in custody under the 17 authority of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Relief under Section 2241 is 18 available only if a federal inmate can show he is “in custody in violation of the 19 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Because 20 the “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction 21 over the petition. Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir.2009) (“The text of the 22 statute makes clear, and the Supreme Court has confirmed, that ‘custody’ is a 23 jurisdictional prerequisite to habeas review under § 2241(c)(3).”) (citing Hensley v. Mun. 24 Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973)). 25 And this Court’s jurisdiction also depends upon the existence of a live “case or 26 controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983); 27 Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir.1996). The Court has no authority to 28 decide “‘questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before [it].’” 1 || DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974) (citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 2 || 244, 246 (1971)). Petitioner is apparently no longer housed at the facility, the alleged 3 conditions of which gave rise to the sole grounds for his petition. The Court’s resolution 4 || of the issues raised in the petition would not impact Petitioner’s rights, nor can the Court 5 || afford Petitioner any remedy. Accordingly, the petition is moot. See DeFunis, 416 U.S. 6 316; Mitchell, 75 F.3d at 528. 7 CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES the petition for writ of 9 || habeas corpus without prejudice and without leave to amend. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 10 || F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (petition for habeas corpus may be dismissed without leave to 11 ||}amend if “it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave 12 || granted.”). The Court DIRECTS Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close 13 case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || DATE: June 22, 2021 Miki Th -{ hill 16 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28