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

E.D. California

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-01443

StatusUnknown

This text of Noah Narh Zizer v. Minga Wofford, Facility Administrator at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, et al. (Noah Narh Zizer v. Minga Wofford, Facility Administrator at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Noah Narh Zizer v. Minga Wofford, Facility Administrator at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9

10 11 NOAH NARH ZIZER, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-01443-JLT-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO ) DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT 13 v. ) ) 14 ) 15 MINGA WOFFORD, Facility Administrator at ) Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, et al., ) 16 ) Respondents. ) 17 )

18 19 Petitioner is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 20 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 21 On October 29, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition challenging his continued 22 detention. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner complained his detention was indefinite as removal was not reasonably 23 foreseeable. On October 31, 2025, the Court issued an order setting a briefing schedule. (Doc. 6.) On 24 December 1, 2025, Respondent notified the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United 25 States. (Doc. 9.) Because the petition is now moot, the Court will recommend it be dismissed. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Jurisdiction 3 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in 4 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 5 “[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to 6 immigration detention that are sufficiently independent of the merits of [a] removal order.” Lopez- 7 Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211–12 8 (9th Cir. 2011)). Pertinent here, the Supreme Court specifically directed that federal courts have 9 jurisdiction to review a constitutional challenge to a non-citizen’s detention. See Demore v. Kim, 538 10 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 11 II. Mootness 12 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 13 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); 14 N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case 15 becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable 16 interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). The Federal Court is “without 17 power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. 18 Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 19 240-241 (1937)). 20 As previously noted, Petitioner filed the instant petition challenging his continued and 21 prolonged detention. Petitioner has since been removed from the United States. Respondent has filed 22 as an exhibit an ICE Form I-205 showing Petitioner was removed from the United States on 23 November 12, 2025. (Doc. 9-1 at 2-3.) Because the petition is now moot, the Court will recommend it 24 be dismissed. 25 RECOMMENDATION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition be 27 DISMISSED as moot. 28 1 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 3 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty- 4 one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file 5 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be 6 captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed 7 fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider 8 exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party 9 should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, 10 or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page 11 limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and 12 Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 13 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 14 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is 15 immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 16 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's 17 judgment. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: December 2, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9

10 11 NOAH NARH ZIZER, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-01443-JLT-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO ) DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT 13 v. ) ) 14 ) 15 MINGA WOFFORD, Facility Administrator at ) Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, et al., ) 16 ) Respondents. ) 17 )

18 19 Petitioner is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 20 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 21 On October 29, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition challenging his continued 22 detention. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner complained his detention was indefinite as removal was not reasonably 23 foreseeable. On October 31, 2025, the Court issued an order setting a briefing schedule. (Doc. 6.) On 24 December 1, 2025, Respondent notified the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United 25 States. (Doc. 9.) Because the petition is now moot, the Court will recommend it be dismissed. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Jurisdiction 3 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in 4 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 5 “[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to 6 immigration detention that are sufficiently independent of the merits of [a] removal order.” Lopez- 7 Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211–12 8 (9th Cir. 2011)). Pertinent here, the Supreme Court specifically directed that federal courts have 9 jurisdiction to review a constitutional challenge to a non-citizen’s detention. See Demore v. Kim, 538 10 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 11 II. Mootness 12 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 13 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); 14 N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case 15 becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable 16 interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). The Federal Court is “without 17 power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. 18 Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 19 240-241 (1937)). 20 As previously noted, Petitioner filed the instant petition challenging his continued and 21 prolonged detention. Petitioner has since been removed from the United States. Respondent has filed 22 as an exhibit an ICE Form I-205 showing Petitioner was removed from the United States on 23 November 12, 2025. (Doc. 9-1 at 2-3.) Because the petition is now moot, the Court will recommend it 24 be dismissed. 25 RECOMMENDATION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition be 27 DISMISSED as moot. 28 1 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 3 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty- 4 one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file 5 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be 6 captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed 7 fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider 8 exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party 9 should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, 10 or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page 11 limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and 12 Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 13 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 14 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is 15 immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 16 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's 17 judgment. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: December 2, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Noah Narh Zizer v. Minga Wofford, Facility Administrator at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noah-narh-zizer-v-minga-wofford-facility-administrator-at-mesa-verde-ice-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack