Mauricio Javier Ordonez Vanegas v. Warden, California City Detention Center

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 MAURICIO JAVIER ORDONEZ Case No. 1:26-cv-04386-KES-EPG-HC VANEGAS, 11 ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO Petitioner, INFORM COURT REGARDING 12 PETITIONER’S CURRENT CUSTODY v. STATUS 13 WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY 14 DETENTION CENTER, 15 Respondent.

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