Eduardo Ceja Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

E.D. California

Eduardo Ceja Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

DecidedSeptember 26, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00463

StatusUnknown

This text of Eduardo Ceja Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. (Eduardo Ceja Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eduardo Ceja Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 EDUARDO CEJA AYALA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00463-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING 14 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD 15 OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION (ECF No. 16) AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a 20 United States magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 6, 14, 15.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court 21 grants Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition for writ of habeas corpus as 22 moot. 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.1) On April 18, 2024, the 26 United States Border Patrol encountered Petitioner entering or attempting to enter the United 27 States. On May 2, 2024, Petitioner was transferred to Golden State Annex in McFarland, 1 California. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) On June 4, 2024, a notice to appear was issued, charging 2 Petitioner with removability under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality 3 Act (“INA”) as an alien without valid entry documents. (Id. at 9.) On October 31, 2024, an 4 immigration judge denied Petitioner’s applications for relief from removal and ordered Petitioner 5 removed to Mexico. (Id. at 13–16.) On November 13, 2024, Petitioner filed an appeal with the 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Id. at 2.) 7 On January 2, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 8 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On April 18, 9 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order 10 transferring the petition to this Court. (ECF No. 7.) In the petition, Petitioner challenges his 11 prolonged detention and requests a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) 12 On March 7, 2025, the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, and on March 13, 2025, 13 Petitioner was removed from the United States to Mexico. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2, 19–20.) On June 14 23, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (ECF No. 16.) To date, no 15 opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 16 II. 17 DISCUSSION 18 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 19 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 20 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 21 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 22 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 23 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). 24 In the petition, Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention in immigration custody. 25 (ECF No. 1.) On March 13, 2025, Petitioner was removed from the United States to Mexico. 26 (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) Given that Petitioner is no longer in immigration custody, the Court finds 27 that no case or controversy exists and the petition is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1 | because “there was no extant controversy for the district court to act upon” when petitioner was 2 | subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about the length of his INS detention”). 3 Il. 4 ORDER 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 6 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED; 7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11] Dated: _ September 26, 2025 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 EDUARDO CEJA AYALA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00463-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING 14 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD 15 OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION (ECF No. 16) AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a 20 United States magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 6, 14, 15.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court 21 grants Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition for writ of habeas corpus as 22 moot. 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.1) On April 18, 2024, the 26 United States Border Patrol encountered Petitioner entering or attempting to enter the United 27 States. On May 2, 2024, Petitioner was transferred to Golden State Annex in McFarland, 1 California. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) On June 4, 2024, a notice to appear was issued, charging 2 Petitioner with removability under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality 3 Act (“INA”) as an alien without valid entry documents. (Id. at 9.) On October 31, 2024, an 4 immigration judge denied Petitioner’s applications for relief from removal and ordered Petitioner 5 removed to Mexico. (Id. at 13–16.) On November 13, 2024, Petitioner filed an appeal with the 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Id. at 2.) 7 On January 2, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 8 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On April 18, 9 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order 10 transferring the petition to this Court. (ECF No. 7.) In the petition, Petitioner challenges his 11 prolonged detention and requests a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) 12 On March 7, 2025, the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, and on March 13, 2025, 13 Petitioner was removed from the United States to Mexico. (ECF No. 16-1 at 2, 19–20.) On June 14 23, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (ECF No. 16.) To date, no 15 opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 16 II. 17 DISCUSSION 18 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 19 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 20 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 21 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 22 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 23 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). 24 In the petition, Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention in immigration custody. 25 (ECF No. 1.) On March 13, 2025, Petitioner was removed from the United States to Mexico. 26 (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) Given that Petitioner is no longer in immigration custody, the Court finds 27 that no case or controversy exists and the petition is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1 | because “there was no extant controversy for the district court to act upon” when petitioner was 2 | subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about the length of his INS detention”). 3 Il. 4 ORDER 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 6 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED; 7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11] Dated: _ September 26, 2025 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eduardo Ceja Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eduardo-ceja-ayala-v-current-or-acting-field-office-director-san-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack