Nguyen Hull Son v. Pam Bondi, et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-02107
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 NGUYEN HULL SON, ) No. 5:25-cv-02107-SVW-JDE ) 12 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS 13 ) v. ) MOOT 14 ) ) 15 PAM BONDI, et al., ) ) 16 Respondents. ) ) 17 18 On August 11, 2025, Nguyen Hull Son (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, 19 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging 20 his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 21 Dkt. 1. The operative First Amended Petition was filed on September 19, 22 2025. Dkt. 9 (“FAP”). Petitioner avers his continued detention by ICE violates 23 the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 24 678 (2001), as, he claims, he has been detained longer than six months and 25 “there is no significant likelihood that [he] will be removed in the foreseeable 26 future.” FAP at 4-7. 27 Following briefing, on December 5, 2025, Respondents filed a “Notice 28 of Removal” advising, with evidentiary support, that Petitioner had been 1 removed from the United States via a charter flight on November 17, 2025. 2 Dkt. 14 (“Notice of Removal”). The executed Warrant of Removal reflects the 3 final destination of the flight was “VVNB,” the abbreviation for Noi Bai 4 International Airport, Hanoi, Vietnam. Dkt. 14-2 at 2. Respondents request 5 that action be dismissed as moot. Notice of Removal at 1. 6 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution 7 deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor 8 Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (per curiam). “To qualify as a case fit 9 for federal court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all 10 stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for 11 Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (citation and internal 12 quotation marks omitted); see also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 13 (1975) (there must be a real and substantial controversy at the time the case is 14 decided). “Mootness is jurisdictional.” Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 15 (9th Cir. 2005). Federal courts do not have the power to decide a case that does 16 not affect the rights of a litigant in the case before it. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 17 F.3d 517, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1996). 18 “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the 19 parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap’s 20 A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (citation omitted). Unless the prevailing party 21 can obtain effective relief, “any opinion as to the legality of the challenged 22 action would be advisory.” Id. “[A federal action] should . . . be dismissed as 23 moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a [federal court] cannot grant 24 ‘any effectual relief’ whatever in favor of the [party seeking relief].” Calderon 25 v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (citation omitted). A habeas 26 petition is moot where the petitioner “seeks relief [that] cannot be ‘redressed by 27 a favorable . . . decision’ of the court issuing a writ of habeas corpus.” Burnett, 28 1 ||432 F.3d at 1000-01 (citation omitted); see also Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 2 951-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (as amended) (habeas petition dismissed as moot 3 || where there was no legal dispute remaining for the court to decide). 4 By the Petition, Petitioner sought release due to the length of his 5 ||detention and lack of any likelihood that he would be removed in the near 6 || future. However, Petitioner has now been removed from the United States and 7 no longer in Respondents’ custody. As such, Petitioner’s challenge to his 8 || detention is now moot. See Nsinano v. Barr, 808 F. App’x 554, 555 (9th Cir. 9 2020) (quoting Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007)); Picrin- 10 || Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (“By his petition for habeas 11 corpus, [the petitioner] has requested only release from custody. Because he 12 been released, there is no further relief we can provide.”). 13 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is 14 || DISMISSED without prejudice as moot. Dated: December 8, 2025 __ ><(Gen/e RESELL) STEPHEN V. WILSON 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28