Muhamd v. ICE Field Office Director

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

11 Petitioner, Case No. 2:20-cv-00605-RAJ 12 v. ORDER 13 ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 14 Respondent. 15 16 The facts underlying this matter are detailed in the Report and Recommendation 17 (“Report”) of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, and 18 will not be repeated here. Dkt. # 8. 19 Petitioner Menther Ibraheem Muhamd seeks either release from immigration 20 detention or a bond hearing. Dkt. # 1. He argues that he is no longer subject to 21 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), but rather discretionary detention under 8 22 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Dkt. # 1 at 3-5. He says that the shift in detention status occurred 23 when he filed his petition for review with the Ninth Circuit and obtained a stay of 24 removal. Id. Having reviewed Mr. Muhamd’s petition, the magistrate determined that 25 Mr. Muhamd’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and that he is therefore 26 subject to mandatory detention until his removal proceedings have concluded. Dkt. # 8 at 27 1 12. That said, the magistrate reasoned that due process requires that Mr. Muhamd be 2 afforded a bond hearing. Id. at 12. 3 After the magistrate issued her report, however, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Mr. 4 Muhamd’s petition for review. Dkt. # 10-1. It denied both his petition and his motion for 5 a stay of removal. Id. at 5. Because the Ninth Circuit has denied the stay of removal, Mr. 6 Muhamd’s detention is now governed not by § 1226(c), not by § 1226(a), but by the 7 mandatory 90-day detention set forth in § 1231(a)(2). Section 1231(a)(2) maintains that 8 “the Attorney General shall detain the alien,” and “[u]nder no circumstance during the 9 removal period shall the Attorney General release [an alien inadmissible for providing 10 material support for terrorism].” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). And, as Respondent observes, 11 Mr. Muhamd’s current detention under section 1231(a)(2) is certainly constitutional. See 12 Khotesouvan v. Morones, 386 F.3d 1298, 1301 (9th Cir. 2004). 13 Thus, Mr. Muhamd’s habeas petition—which solely addresses § 1226(c) and 14 § 1226(a)—is now moot. “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 15 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. “A federal court 16 lacks [subject-matter] jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot,” that is a case in which no 17 live controversy exists and the plaintiff can no longer obtain relief for his claim. Bishop 18 Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cty., 863 F.3d 1144, 1155 (9th Cir. 2017). Because Mr. Muhamd’s 19 petition is now moot, the Court no longer has subject-matter jurisdiction and must 20 dismiss this action sua sponte. 21 For the reasons stated above, the Court finds and ORDERS: 22 (1) The Court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation (#8); 23 (2) Respondent’s Return Memorandum and Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 5) is 24 DENIED; 25 (3) Petitioner’s habeas petition (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED; 26 (4) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 27 / / / 1 (5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge 2 Peterson. 3

4 DATED this 28th day of October, 2020. 5

6 A 7 8 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 9 United States District Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27