Hernandez-Gonzalez v. Bondi

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA GONZALEZ, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00351-TMC-GJL Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. Noting Date: June 13, 2025 PAMELA BONDI, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner Nestor Alonzo Hernandez-Gonzalez initiated this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas action on February 25, 2025, to obtain his release from immigration detention. Dkt. 1. Petitioner is proceeding with counsel. See Dkt. 8. The Government has subsequently filed a Notice of Change in Custody Status informing the Court of Petitioner’s April 4, 2025, removal from the United States along with a corresponding Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. Dkt. 11. Because this action no longer involves a live controversy for adjudication, the undersigned recommends the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) be GRANTED and the Petition (Dkt. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice. Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). “For a habeas petition to continue to present a live controversy after the petitioner’s release or deportation . . . there must be some remaining ‘collateral consequence’ that may be redressed by success on the petition.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, Petitioner sought only his release from detention, so his claims have been fully resolved. See Dkts. 1, 11. Accordingly, there is no collateral consequence remaining to be redressed by the Court and the

Petition should be dismissed as moot. See id. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. No certificate of appealability shall issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time

limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on June 13, 2025, as noted in the caption. Dated this 29th day of May, 2025. A Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge