Elder Garza Gomez v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 ELDER GARZA GOMEZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-04629-KES-EPG-HC

11 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO INFORM COURT REGARDING 12 v. PETITIONER’S CURRENT CUSTODY STATUS 13 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., 14 Respondents.

15 16 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. 18 On June 26, 2026, a court document was returned as undeliverable. On July 1, 2026, 19 Respondents filed an answer arguing the Court should deny the petition because “Petitioner is 20 subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” (ECF No. 9 at 2.) A search of the U.S. 21 Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) Online Detainee Locator System using 22 Petitioner’s A-Number produces zero results. See ICE Online Detainee Locator System, 23 https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited July 2, 2026). 24 The Court has “an independent duty to consider sua sponte whether a case is moot.” 25 Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 26 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999)). The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases 27 or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or- controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which 1 | “means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an 2 | actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial 3 | decision.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 US. at 477). 4 Based on ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System, it appears that Petitioner is no longer in 5 | ICE custody and may have been released from custody, which could moot his pending habeas 6 | petition. See Abdala v. LN.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding habeas petition 7 | challenging length of immigration detention moot because “there was no extant controversy for 8 | the district court to act upon” when petitioner was subsequently released from immigration 9 | custody, “thereby curing his complaints about the length of his INS detention”). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of the date of service 11 | of this order, Respondent SHALL inform the Court of Petitioner’s current custody status and file 12 | any supporting documentation. 13 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _duly 2, 2026 [Je heey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28