Juan Carlos Ramirez Quintanilla v. DHS OPLA

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 24, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-02783
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ ) No. 5:26-cv-02783-SVW-JDE QUINTANILLA, ) 12 ) ) ORDER RE: SUMMARY 13 Petitioner, ) DISMISSAL OF ACTION ) 14 v. ) )

15 DHS OPLA, ) ) 16 ) Respondent. ) ) 17 18 On May 19, 2026, Juan Carlos Ramirez Quintanilla (“Petitioner”), then 19 in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at Adelanto, 20 California (“Adelanto”), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 21 Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1 22 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Petitioner seeks to challenge his “current immigration 23 detention” arguing his continued immigration detention “is unlawful because 24 [it] is unreasonabl[e] and there is not a significant likelihood of removal in the . 25 . . reasonably foreseeable future,” citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 26 (2001). Id. at 3, 7. Following briefing and after filing a Notice of Intended 27 Removal of Petitioner in compliance with General Order 26-05, on June 17, 28 2026, Respondent filed a Notice of Removal of Petitioner, advising that 1 Petitioner had been removed from the United States on June 5, 2026, under a 2 final order of removal, attaching the warrant of removal. Dkt. 11, 11-1. 3 A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same 4 screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. 5 § 2254. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 6 Courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Habeas Rules”), Habeas Rule 1(b) (providing that 7 district courts may apply the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not 8 brought under § 2254); see also Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th 9 Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss a 10 Section 2241 petition). Accordingly, the Court “must promptly examine” the 11 petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the 12 petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the Court “must dismiss the petition.” 13 Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). The Court finds the 14 Petition is subject to summary dismissal. 15 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution 16 deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor 17 Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (per curiam). “To qualify as a case fit 18 for federal court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all 19 stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for 20 Off. English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (citations and internal 21 quotation marks omitted); see also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 22 (1975) (there must be a real and substantial controversy at the time the case is 23 decided). “Mootness is jurisdictional.” Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 24 (9th Cir. 2005). 25 “A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the 26 parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap’s 27 A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (citations and internal quotation marks 28 omitted). Unless the prevailing party can obtain effective relief, “any opinion 1 to the legality of the challenged action would be advisory.” Id. “|A federal 2 action] should .. . be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening 3 ||event, a [federal court] cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of 4 [party seeking relief].” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per 5 ||curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Federal courts do not 6 || have the power to decide a case that does not affect the rights of a litigant in 7 ||the case before it. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1996). 8 A habeas petition 1s moot where the petitioner “seeks relief [that] cannot 9 redressed by a favorable decision of the court issuing a writ of habeas 10 ||corpus.” Burnett, 432 F.3d at 1000-01 (internal quotation marks and ellipses 11 || omitted); see also Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2010) 12 (habeas petition properly dismissed as moot where there was no legal issue 13 ||remaining for the court to decide). The Court does not have subject-matter 14 ||jurisdiction to consider a habeas claim that is moot. See, e.g., McCullough v. 15 || Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2013). 16 Here, Petitioner sought release from ICE detention, arguing his removal 17 || was not likely to occur in the foreseeable future. He has now been removed. As 18 ||such, the Petition is moot. See, e.g., Abdala v. L.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th 19 || Cir. 2007) (holding that a habeas claim challenging only the length detention 20 || was rendered moot by petitioner’s removal); Oury v. Warden of the Mesa 21 || Verde Det. Facility, 2026 WL 853374, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2026) 22 ||(“Because petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, the Court finds that the 23 || petition is moot.”), adopted by 2026 WL 1147959 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026). 24 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered 25 denying the Petition and dismissing this action without prejudice as moot.

Dated: June 24, 2026 > fee) 27 HON. STEPHEN V. WILSON 28 United States District Judge