Ramil v. Beckhelm
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 7.) On February 21, 2023, Respondent filed a status report 3 || indicating that due to the inadvertent disclosure of Pe
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an ICE detainee seeking release from custody. The court dismissed the petition as moot because the petitioner had been released from custody on bond prior to the ruling.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus dismissed as moot“Because Petitioner has obtained the remedy he sought with his Petition, parole from custody, the issues presented in this case are no longer live and the Court DISMISSES the Petition as MOOT.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the mootness doctrine. The petitioner's primary request was release from ICE custody. The record indicates that the petitioner was released from custody on bond on February 22, 2023, two days before the order was filed. Under Article III, a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live and the court cannot afford any effective relief. Since the petitioner is no longer detained, the specific relief sought (release) has been granted, rendering the petition moot. The citation to Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. supports the general principle of mootness, and the citation to Fon v. Mayorkas provides a directly analogous precedent within the district regarding immigration detention habeas petitions. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and legally sound. It accurately identifies the change in circumstances (release from custody) that renders the case moot. It cites the appropriate Supreme Court authority for the mootness standard and a relevant district court case for the specific context of immigration detention. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the lack of a live controversy.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MALIKOV RAMIL, Case No.: 22-CV-1655-GPC-BGS 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT 14 KELLEY BECKHELM, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On October 20, 2022, Malikov Ramil (“Petitioner” or “Ramil”), a detainee in the 18 custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), filed a Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2441 requesting that this Court “[o]rder 20 [his] release from ICE custody” because despite his final order of removal, ICE is unable 21 to deport him in the near future because of “broken diplomacy with Russia.” (ECF No. 1, 22 Pet. at 2, 7.1) During briefing, Respondent responded that “Petitioner’s allegation that he 23 cannot be repatriated is unfounded” given that he is scheduled to be deported to Russia in 24 December 2022. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Because Petitioner appeared to still be detained at the 25 26 1 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 27 1 || Otay Mesa Detention Facility as of February 15, 2023, the Court directed Respondent to 2 || provide an update. (Dkt. No. 7.) On February 21, 2023, Respondent filed a status report 3 || indicating that due to the inadvertent disclosure of Petitioner’s personally identifiable 4 ||information on November 28, 2022, Petitioner’s removal proceedings re-commenced on 5 || February 9, 2023 in order to allow him to apply for asylum. (Dkt. No. 8 at 1-2; see Dkt. 6 || No. 8-1 at 6-7.) A hearing is currently set before the Immigration Judge on February 28, 7 ||2023. (Dkt. No. 8-1 at 2-3.) On February 17, 2023, ICE also granted him parole from 8 || custody subject to parole reporting requirements and a $5,000.00 bond payment. (Dkt. 9 || No. 8 at 1; Dkt. No. 8-1 at 9.) On February 22, 2023, Petitioner was released from 10 || custody on bond. (Dkt. No. 10-1.) 11 ““A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a Case or Controversy for 12 || purposes of Article [1I—when the issues presented are no longer live.” Already, LLC v. 13 || Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (internal quotations omitted); see also Fon v. 14 || Mayorkas, Case No.: 3:21cv295-AJB-WVG, 2021 WL 5444787 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15 |} 13, 2021) (petitioner’s habeas petition requesting release from immigration detention was 16 || moot and petition dismissed upon release from detention). Because Petitioner has 17 || obtained the remedy he sought with his Petition, parole from custody, the issues 18 || presented in this case are no longer live and the Court DISMISSES the Petition as 19 ||} MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: February 24, 2023 2 22 Hon. athe Cae 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 22-CV-1655-GPC-BGS