HERBERT ARCE-RETANA V. NATHALIE ASHER, No. 13-35549 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HERBERT ARCE-RETANA, a.k.a. Herbert Conrado Arce-Retana, No. 13-35549 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02062-TSZ Petitioner - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. NATHALIE ASHER, ICE Field Office Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Herbert Arce-Retana appeals pro se from the district court’s final judgment dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). immigration detention and bond amount. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s dismissal of Arce-Retana’s habeas petition because his subsequent departure from the United States following his release from immigration custody during the pendency of his appeal moots his requests for release from custody on the condition of bond and for a reduction in the bond amount. See Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Federal courts do not have constitutional authority to decide moot cases.”); see also Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissing a habeas petition for mootness, where the petitioner’s deportation “cur[ed] his complaints about the length of his INS detention” and presented “no collateral consequences . . . that his original petition could have redressed”). DISMISSED. 2 13-35549

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.