Daniela Beltran Rojas v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 6, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-02065
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIELA BELTRAN ROJAS, No. 1:26-cv-02065-JLT-EGC (HC) (A-Number: 246-235-616) 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Petitioner, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 [Doc. 2] v. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION 15 WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY TO DISMISS DETENTION FACILITY, et al., [Doc. 8] 16 Respondents. [10-DAY DEADLINE] 17 18 19 Petitioner is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 21 On March 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court along 22 with a motion for appointment of counsel.1 (Docs. 1, 2.) On March 18, 2026, the Court issued an 23 order directing Respondents to file a response to the petition. (Doc. 6.) On April 17, 2026, 24 Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot as Petitioner has been removed from 25 the United States. (Doc. 8.) For reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the motion 26 be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED. 27 1 Because the petition has become moot, Petitioner’s motion for counsel will be denied as 28 unnecessary. 1 DISCUSSION 2 Petitioner filed the instant petition challenging her continued detention by Immigration 3 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Respondents state that on April 7, 2026, Petitioner was 4 removed to Colombia pursuant to the Immigration Judge’s final order of removal. (Doc. 8 at 1, 5 4.) 6 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 7 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 8 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A 9 case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally 10 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal 11 Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before 12 them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. 13 Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). 14 Petitioner challenged her continued and prolonged detention, and she has since been 15 released via removal to Colombia. As Petitioner has been removed from the United States and is 16 no longer in immigration detention, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists, and the 17 petition should be dismissed as moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) 18 (holding habeas petition challenging only length of immigration detention was moot because 19 “there was no extant controversy for the district court to act upon” when petitioner was 20 subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about the length of his INS detention”). 21 ORDER 22 Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, (Doc. 2), is DENIED. 23 RECOMMENDATION 24 The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be 25 GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED. 26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 28 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 1 | ten (10) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may 2 | file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Jd. The document should be 3 | captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not 4 | exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 5 || consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any 6 || exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page 7 | number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 8 || excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when 9 | reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 10 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 11 | ofrights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This 12 || recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 13 | Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 14 | should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 17 | Dated: _ May 5, 2026 Cu iy du UNITED STATES MWGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28