Nurmakhamed Nadyrov v. Warden of Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00754
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 NURMAKHAMED NADYROV, Case No. 1:25-cv-00754-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS AND DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT 14 WARDEN OF GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 15 TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents. 16 (ECF No. 14)

17 18 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241. As Petitioner has been removed from the United States, the undersigned 20 recommends the motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed as moot. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On June 20, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting 24 that he has been detained in the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs 25 Enforcement (“ICE”) since July 2, 2024, and that his prolonged detention without a hearing on 26 danger and flight risk violates due process. (ECF No. 1 at 2, 5.1) On August 26, 2025, Petitioner 27 was removed from the United States. (ECF No. 14-1 at 2.) On September 26, 2025, Respondent 1 filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (ECF No. 14.) To date, no opposition to the 2 motion to dismiss has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 6 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 7 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 8 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 9 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 10 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). In the petition, Petitioner 11 challenges his prolonged immigration detention. On August 26, 2025, Petitioner was removed 12 from the United States. (ECF No. 14-1 at 2.) Given that Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, 13 the Court finds that no case or controversy exists and the petition is moot. See Abdala v. I.N.S., 14 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding habeas petition challenging length of immigration 15 detention moot because “there was no extant controversy for the district court to act upon” when 16 petitioner was subsequently deported, “thereby curing his complaints about the length of his INS 17 detention”). 18 III. 19 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 20 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 21 1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) be GRANTED; and 22 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT. 23 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 24 the present matter. 25 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 26 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 27 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 1 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 2 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 3 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed 4 | within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned United States District 5 | Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 6 | The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 7 | right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 8 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11] Dated: _ December 11, 2025 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28