Noah Narh Zizer v. Minga Wofford, Facility Administrator at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, et al.

Opinion

NOAH NARH ZIZER, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-01443-JLT-SKO (HC) ) Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO ) DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT v. ) ) ) MINGA WOFFORD, Facility Administrator at ) Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) )

Petitioner is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 29, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition challenging his continued detention. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner complained his detention was indefinite as removal was not reasonably foreseeable. On October 31, 2025, the Court issued an order setting a briefing schedule. (Doc. 6.) On December 1, 2025, Respondent notified the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United States. (Doc. 9.) Because the petition is now moot, the Court will recommend it be dismissed. //// //// //// I. Jurisdiction A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to immigration detention that are sufficiently independent of the merits of [a] removal order.” Lopez- Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211–12 (9th Cir. 2011)). Pertinent here, the Supreme Court specifically directed that federal courts have jurisdiction to review a constitutional challenge to a non-citizen’s detention. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). II. Mootness The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). The Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). As previously noted, Petitioner filed the instant petition challenging his continued and prolonged detention. Petitioner has since been removed from the United States. Respondent has filed as an exhibit an ICE Form I-205 showing Petitioner was removed from the United States on November 12, 2025. (Doc. 9-1 at 2-3.) Because the petition is now moot, the Court will recommend it be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED as moot. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty- one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment.

Dated: December 2, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE