Phoxay Souvannarath v. Tonya Andrews, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 PHOXAY SOUVANNARATH, No. 1:25-cv-01524-DAD-EFB 11 Petitioner, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 TONYA ANDREWS, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2241. Because petitioner has since been removed from the United States, the undersigned 18 recommends the petition be dismissed as moot. 20 Petitioner, a Laotian national, initiated this action seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 21 U.S.C. § 2241, on November 10, 2025, alleging that he was unlawfully held in the custody of 22 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ECF No. 1. The same day, he moved for 23 appointment of counsel. ECF No. 2. 24 On December 8, 2025, petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, 25 alleging four grounds for relief: that his continued detention violates the due process clause and 26 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); that his detention without notice and a pre-deprivation 27 hearing violates due process and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); that the third-country 28 removal process to which petitioner may be subject violated due process, the INA, the APA, and 1 international law; and that petitioner’s removal to a third country would violate the Fifth and 2 Eighth Amendments. ECF No. 6. As relief, petitioner sought immediate release from custody, an 3 order that respondents could not remove or seek to remove petitioner to a third country without 4 notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and an order limiting the third countries to 5 which petitioner could be removed. ECF No. 6 at 20. On December 15, 2025, the undersigned 6 granted petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, ordered respondents to file an answer, 7 and ordered that respondents could not move petitioner outside of this judicial district pending 8 further order of the court. ECF No. 7. 9 On January 2, 2026, respondents filed an answer to the amended petition. ECF No. 13. In 10 it, respondents represent that, on November 26, 2025, ICE received a travel document from the 11 Laotian government authorizing petitioner’s removal there. ECF No. 13 at 2 & Ex. 1. 12 Respondents represent to the court that prior to the issuance of this court’s order that the 13 petitioner not be moved outside of this district, petitioner was transported, on December 12 or 13, 14 2025, to a detention facility in Texas. ECF No, 13 at 2 & Ex. 2. On December 16, 2025, 15 petitioner was deported to Laos from Texas. ECF No. 13 at 2 & Ex. 3; see ECF No. 14. 17 Under Article III, Section II of the Constitution, a federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to 18 adjudication of “live” cases and controversies. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 705 19 (2013). This requirement extends through the life of the case; a case must be dismissed if it 20 becomes moot at any state. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997); 21 City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, 455 U.S. 283, 288 (1982). In a habeas corpus action 22 challenging immigration detention, the case becomes moot if the petitioner is deported, unless the 23 petitioner alleges he will suffer some form of adverse collateral consequence in addition to 24 deportation from the harms alleged in the petition. Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 25 2007); Zegarra-Gomez v. I.N.S., 314 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2003). 26 Here, the amended petition challenged only petitioner’s pre-removal detention and 27 possibility of removal to a country other than Laos and, as relief, he sought release with an order 28 limiting respondents’ abilities to remove petitioner to a third country. ECF No. 6 at 4-20. As 1 petitioner has since been deported to Laos, his claims challenging his detention and the possibility 2 of removal to another country have become moot. See Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1064-65. The 3 amended petition alleged no collateral consequences that would be redressed by a ruling in his 4 favor. See id.; see also ECF No. 14. Because there is no extant controversy on which the court 5 can act, the undersigned recommends the petition be dismissed. See Abdala, 488 F.3d at 1065. 7 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 8 Corpus (ECF No. 6) be DISMISSED as MOOT. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 14 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 15 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 Dated: February 12, 2026 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28