Cravenhorst-Benitez v. Matuszewski

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 28, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00186
• Status: Unknown

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