Harjeetpal Singh v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Los Angeles Field Office
This text of Harjeetpal Singh v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Los Angeles Field Office (Harjeetpal Singh v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Los Angeles Field Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 HARJEETPAL SINGH, Case No. 5:24-02353 FWS (ADS)
11 Petitioner,
12 v. ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE CORPUS DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES FIELD 14 OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMES 15 ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
16 Respondent. 17 On November 4, 2024, Harjeetpal Singh (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner asserts a 19 single claim: that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is violating his rights 20 under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zydvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001), by 21 detaining him for longer than six months since an Immigration Judge ordered his 22 removal. (Id.) On November 18, 2024, however, ICE removed Petitioner from the 23 United States. (Dkt. No. 9; Dkt. No. 9-1, Robles Decl. ¶ 3.) Thus, the Petition is moot 24 and must be dismissed, as there is no further relief for the Court to provide. See Abdala 1 || INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (habeas petitions raising claims that are 2 || fully resolved by release from custody are moot); Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 3 477 (1990) (“a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 4 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision”); 5 || Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988) (“Article III of the Constitution limits 6 || federal courts to the adjudication of actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.”). 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed as moot. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ZA {jjt—~ 10 || Dated: December 12, 2024 _ THE HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER 11 United States District Judge 12 || Presented by: 13 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth _ THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 14 || United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Harjeetpal Singh v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Los Angeles Field Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harjeetpal-singh-v-current-or-acting-field-office-director-los-angeles-cacd-2024.