Davi Avelar De Mederios v. Warden, California City Correctional Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DAVI AVELAR DE MEDERIOS, No. 1:26-03285-TLN-SCR (A#241-112-563), 12 Petitioner, 13 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a writ of habeas corpus filed 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This action was referred to the undersigned by operation of Local 20 Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 Based on a review of respondent’s exhibit attached to the motion to dismiss, petitioner 22 voluntarily departed the United States on a commercial flight on April 19, 2026. ECF No. 5-1 23 (Voluntary Departure and Verification of Departure Form). Petitioner’s removal moots his 24 pending challenge to his immigration detention. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th 25 Cir. 2007) (holding that since petitioner’s “habeas claims challenged only the length of his 26 detention, as distinguished from the lawfulness of the deportation order… [h]is petition was … 27 moot by his removal”). As a result, the undersigned recommends granting respondent’s motion 28 to dismiss the § 2241 petition. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be granted. 3 2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot based on 4 || petitioner’s voluntary departure from the United States. 5 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment for respondent and to close this case. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days after 8 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 9 || the court and serve a copy on all parties. The undersigned finds that a shortened objection period 10 | is warranted in this case given the nature of the relief at issue as well as the fact that the parties 11 | have had sufficient time to submit all of their arguments in written briefs. See United States v. 12 | Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) sets 13 | the maximum objection period and not the minimum); see also Local Rule 304(b). The parties 14 || are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 15 | the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 | DATED: May 8, 2026 kind 18 SEAN C. RIORDAN 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28