Cravenhorst-Benitez v. Matuszewski
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a habeas corpus petition filed by a petitioner seeking release from immigration detention. The court denied the petition as moot because the petitioner had already been released from custody.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus denied as moot“Accordingly, Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 writ of habeas corpus petition is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.” | agree with court The petitioner sought only release from detention. Because the petitioner was released from ICE custody on February 6, 2023, prior to the court's ruling, the specific relief requested is no longer available. Under the mootness doctrine, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Since the petitioner is no longer detained, the court cannot grant the requested relief, rendering the petition moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the petitioner's sole request was for release from detention. It notes that the petitioner was released on February 6, 2023. It cites appropriate authority establishing that release from custody moots a habeas petition seeking only release. The court also noted the petitioner's failure to respond to a show cause order and failure to update his address, which supports the procedural posture of denying the petition as moot rather than dismissing it for failure to prosecute, though the mootness is the primary legal basis.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO CRAVENHORST-BENITEZ, Case No.: 23-CV-186 JLS (KSC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 13 v. PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION 14 JAMISON MATUSZEWSKI, et al., 15 Respondents. (ECF No. 1) 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Ricardo Cravenhorst-Benitez’s Petition for 20 a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Petitioner 21 requested that the Court issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering either Petitioner’s (1) 22 immediate release upon the Court’s determination that his continued detention is not 23 justified, or (2) release within 30 days unless Respondents schedule a hearing before an 24 immigration judge to determine whether Petitioner’s detention pending removal is 25 justified. Id. ¶¶ 4–5; Prayer for Relief. On February 6, 2023, Petitioner was released 26 from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody under an Order of Release on 27 Recognizance. See generally Notice of Release (ECF No. 4). 28 / / / 1 In light of Petitioner’s release, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause as to 2 the Petition should not be dismissed as moot. See ECF No. 5; Ying Jiao Ye v. 3 || Nordheim, No. 218CV10072JVSKES, 2019 WL 979245, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2019) 4 ||(‘[H]abeas petitions that raise claims that are fully resolved by release from custody are 5 ||rendered moot upon the petitioner’s release.”). Petitioner’s deadline to respond to the 6 ||order was February 28, 2023. See ECF No. 5. That deadline has since passed, and the 7 ||Court has yet to receive Petitioner’s response. Moreover, Petitioner’s mail is now being 8 |/returned as undeliverable, presumably because Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court and 9 ||opposing parties advised as to his current address in accordance with Local Rule 10 ||83.11(b). See ECF Nos. 8, 9, 10. Finally, there is no indication that Plaintiff has taken 11 action in this matter since filing the Petition on January 30, 2023. 12 Accordingly, Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 writ of habeas corpus petition is hereby 13 || DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. See Riley v. L.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253, 14 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Appellant’s release from detention moots his challenge to the 15 legality of his extended detention.”); Savvah v. Farquharson, 382 F.3d 20, 22 (1st Cir. 16 2004) (“[Petitioner] also claimed indefinite detention, but this claim was mooted by his 17 subsequent release.”’); Limpin v. Figueroa, 738 F. App’x 504 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Because 18 [petitioner’s] petition did not assert any collateral consequences from his detention, and 19 ||requested only release from detention, there is no longer any relief this court can grant 20 Therefore, his appeal is dismissed as moot.”). Jf Petitioner wishes to file an 21 || amended petition, he must do so within 30 days of the date of this order. Failure to (1) 22 || file an amended petition and (2) notify the Court and Defendants of his current 23 || mailing address on or before April 28, 2023 will result in the dismissal of this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: March 28, 2023 . tt f Le 26 on. Janis L. Sammartino 17 United States District Judge 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28