(HC) Barajas v. Lynch et al, No. 1:2016cv00985 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant Respondent's 12 Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/16. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-One Days. The new case number is 1:16-cv-00985-LJO-JLT (HC). (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SILVIA VILLANUEVA BARAJAS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00985-JLT (HC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION PERIOD] Petitioner was formerly a detainee of the United States Department of Homeland Security. She 19 filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 27, 2016, challenging 20 her indefinite detention. On August 29, 2016, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as 21 moot, claiming Petitioner was no longer in custody and had been removed to Mexico. The Court 22 agrees and will recommend the motion be granted and the petition be dismissed. 23 24 25 DISCUSSION I. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 26 if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is 27 not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 28 1 The Ninth Circuit has allowed Respondent’s to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer if 1 2 the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in violation of the state’s 3 procedural rules. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to 4 evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 5 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss for state 6 procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). Thus, 7 a respondent can file a motion to dismiss after the court orders a response, and the court should use 8 Rule 4 standards to review the motion. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 12. In this case, Respondent's motion to dismiss is based on the contention that the petition and its 9 10 claims are moot. Because Respondent's motion to dismiss is similar in procedural standing to a 11 motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies or for state procedural default and Respondent 12 has not yet filed a formal answer, the Court will review Respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to its 13 authority under Rule 4. 14 II. Mootness The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 15 16 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); 17 N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case 18 becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable 19 interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). The Federal Court is “without 20 power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. 21 Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 22 240-241 (1937)). The instant petition requests immediate release from indefinite detention. Respondent submits 23 24 that Petitioner was removed to Mexico on August 26, 2016. As proof, Respondent has provided a 25 copy of Form I-205, Warrant of Removal/Deportation, which shows Petitioner was removed on 26 August 26, 2016. (Doc. No. 12, Ex. B.) Because there is no further relief that this Court can provide 27 to Petitioner, the petition is now moot. Hence, Respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted. 28 /// 2 ORDER 1 2 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case. RECOMMENDATION 3 4 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that: 5 1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12), be GRANTED; 6 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED as moot; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 8 This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 9 to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules 10 of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty-one days 11 after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy 12 on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten court days (plus 14 three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate 15 Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 16 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez 17 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.