Miguel Angel Tobar v. Warden of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 26-00850-KK-PDx Date: April 9, 2026 Title:

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dominique Carr Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as MOOT On February 11, 2026, petitioner Miguel Angel Tobar (“Petitioner”) filed the operative Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against respondent the Warden of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center (“Respondent”), seeking a declaration that his detention is unlawful, and either a bond hearing or immediate release from custody. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. On March 9, 2026, Respondent filed a status report indicating Petitioner elected to voluntarily depart the United States. Dkt. 9.

The “basic question in determining mootness is whether there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” Wallingford v. Bonta, 82 F.4th 797, 805 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation modified) (quoting Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988)). “A case becomes moot when interim relief or events have deprived the court of the ability to redress the party’s injuries.” United States v. Alder Creek Water Co., 823 F.2d 343, 345 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, courts have an obligation to consider mootness sua sponte and should deny requested relief where it is superfluous. In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2005).

Here, Petitioner departed the United States on March 9, 2026, and is no longer in Respondent’s custody. Dkt. 9. Therefore, the Court cannot grant any further relief based on Petitioner’s claims that his detention is unlawful. Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby DISMISSED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED. (JS-6)